Submitted to the Marathwada Kris hi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of

Transcription

1 BY 8. Sc. (Agrl.) '1 Submitted to the Marathwada Kris hi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (Agriculture) AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PARBHAN1 MARATHWADA KRISH1 VIDYAPEETH PARBHANI (M.S.) INDIA 2011

2

3 CANDIDATE S DECLARATION I, hereby declare that the dissertation or part thereof, has not been previously submitted by me to any other University or institution for a degree or diploma Place: PARBHANI. Date:23/05/2011 (Thakur S.R.)

4 Dr. D.W. WADNERKAR M.Sc. (Agri.), Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Entomology, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani (M.S.) India. CERTIFICATE - I This is to certify that Ms. THAKUR SAPANA ROOPSING has satisfactorily prosecuted her course and research for period of not less than four semesters and that the dissertation entitled EVALUATION OF INTERSPECIFIC DERIVATIVES OF PIGEONPEA AGAINST POD BORER COMPLEX submitted by her is the result of original research work and is of sufficiently high standard which warrant it s presentation to the examination. I also certify that the dissertation or part thereof has not been previously submitted by her for a degree of any university. Place: PARBHANI Date:l / (Dr. D.W. WADNERKAR) Research Guide

5 CERTIFICATE - II This is to certify that the dissertation entitled EVALUATION OF INTERSPECIFIC DERIVATIVES OF PIGEONPEA AGAINST POD BORER COMPLEX submitted by Ms. THAKUR SAPANA ROOPSING to the Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (Agriculture) in the subject of AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY has been approved by the student s advisory committee after oral examination in collaboration with the external examiner. (Dr. D.W. Wadnerkar) Research Guide Members of Advisory Committee: (Dr. D.G. More) Associate Dean (P.G.) College of Agriculture, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani , (Dr. G.P. Jagtap)

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Emotions cannot Be adequately expressed in words Because then emotions are transformed into mere formalities. Nevertheless, formalities have to Be completed My achpowledgements are many more than what I am expressing here. I fee! extremely honoured for the opportunity Bestowed upon me to worf under versatile guidance of my honoumble research guide Or. D."W. WadnerRflr, Associate (professor, (Department ofagricultural Entomology, Marathwada %jishi Vidyapeeth, ParBhani Indeed my indebtedness to him Becomes unquantifiabkjbr his personal interest and scholastic guidance, constant encouragement and constructive criticism throughout the course of this investigation and presentation of dissertation. No words an adequate to express my thankfulness to him. I would Rhg to place on record my sincere thanhs and deep sense of gratitude to advisory committee members, Dr. P.P. Phosate, Head, (Department of Agricultural Entomology, (Dr. D.Q. Mon, Assistant Entomologist, SoyaBean (Research Station, M.%V. (ParBhani and (Dr. Q.P. Jagtap, Assistant Professor (Department of Plant Pathology, M.%V. ParBhani, for their valuable guidance and help during my course of investigation. I am highly indebted to (Dr. IJL Madrup, Nead, (Department of Agricultural (Botany for his valuable suggestions and help during the period of investigation. I sincerely express my deep sense of gratitude to (Dr. % P. (fore, Non. Vice- Chancellor, (Dr. VS. Sinde, (Dean (E/A) and Dr. N<D. Pawar, Associate (Dean and Principal College of Agriculture, M.%V. ParBhani for expending all the required facilities for completion pfthis investigation. Dr. PS. (Borifar, Dr. $,(& Mofa, Dr. V.L. Lande, Dr. V.M. Waghmare, Dr. NR, Patange, Dr. S.S. Qosalwad, Dr. MJlyas, Prof. PS. %fldam and ad other staff members of Dept. ofagril Entomology, MN/V ParBhani, may Be regarded as the lighthouse for the ocean liners, whose guidance helped to navigate my ship of academic pursuit and I would Ufa to mention my gratitude to them.

7 One needs sincere friends at ad major junctures in Cife to Bear straw and fatigue chee fully. I have Been more than lucky in this respect and would like to record my cardiac sense of gratitude towards ad my intimate friends Seema, Neeta, Qfatna, Jayamala, (Priyankfi, 'imtshag, Shweta and1p anita didifor tfieir kind co-operation, throughout this academic programme. I would [ike to cypress my heartily gratitude to ad my classmates Sarkflte, WaCke, Sonawane, <Phad, Chavan, Shirdhone, %pre, Salunkf, Cjarud, %fatak$, Chikfiale, Kjhirsagar, gawade and Survase for their moral support and cooperation throughout this academic programme. No words are enough to cypress, heartiest gratitude to my father ShrL %popsing dhakur, mother Sou. Kjimal dhakyr and my grandmother Shrimati Xfiusadya dhakur who have Been striving throughout their life to make my life lively with success, who have always inspired towards success and above ad they have given me a moral strength to make myself a successful human Being. I also wish to express my special thanks to my Best friends, Megha and Shitak whose support and encouragement inspired me for the completion of the course of study. I am equally grateful to Mr. Cjaikjvad for statistical analysis and computerized programming for this thesis. I am extremely thankful to Mule, Jfinge, Shinde, Waghmare andsasanefor their kind help in carrying out various field operations in my experimental plot. finally, I owe my gratitude to ad those whom I might have forgotten due to my short commings. Last But never the (east, with my humble sense, I want Be Bow Before that Supreme Cosmic Consciousness from which everything originates and goes at end. Place : Parbhani Date: / /2011 SAPANA ROOPSING THAKUR

8 CONTENTS Chapter No. Title Page No. I INTRODUCTION 1-5 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6-19 III MATERIAL AND METHODS IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION LITERATURE CITED i - x APPENDIX I

9 Table No LIST OF TABLES Title Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean per cent green pod damage due to H armigera Hub. in different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean per cent green pod damage due to H armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea Evaluation of different genotypes for specific characters in relation to pod damage by pod borer complex in pigeonpea Page No Grain yield (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea Grain yield (kg) of different cross lines of pigeonpea 66

10 Fig. No. LIST OF FIGURES Title In between pages 1. Layout for evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea Grain yield (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea Grain yield (kg) of different cross lines of pigeonpea 66-67

11 LIST OF PLATES Plate No. Title be T 1. Field layout of pigeonpea screening experiment 2: 2. Tur Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigerd) 3-3. Tur Plume moth (Exelastis atomsa) 3' 4. Tur Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) 3: Nature of pod damage by pod borer complex on pigeonpea Nature of grain damage by pod borer complex on pigeonpea 4 5:

12 cm m etal o ««-H 00 <U P h OQ tr* P 00 M SP 0s 2 o at the rate of Centimeter(s) meter(s) and other etceteras Figure Gram (s) hectare kilogram (s) per cent Number per SE CD i.e. LPB WAS Standard Error Critical difference that is lepidopterous pod borer weeks after sowing

13 TpIntroduction

14 CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh) is commonly known as Arhar, Red gram or Tur. After chickpea, it is the second most important grain legume in India. Pigeonpea has been very important component of farming system in India, because of its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. The symbiotic bacteria in root nodules fix atmospheric nitrogen as a result soil fertility is improved. Being a deep rooted crop it can thrive well under rainfed condition. Its roots open up soil and improve the soil in the form of dried leaves and roots. It produces a significant amount of biomass, the dry shoots are invariably used as fuel wood, fencing and thatching. The add secretion from its root nodules dissolve iron and phosphate and increase the availability of phosphorus in the soil. Thus it contributes to the sustainability of agriculture besides being used as food, fuel wood and fodder. Pigeonpea is a multipurpose crop. It is a major source of protein ami complements the protein deficient cereal diets in rural areas in India. The pigeonpea grain contains per cent protein (Bhoyar et al. 2004). The nitrogen content in the seed and stalk ranges between 3.14 to 3.87 and 0.64 to 1.01 per cent respectively. Being the area of origin and the principal center of diversity, India has had a virtual monopoly on pigeonpea production in the world. So far 90 per cent of total world production of pigeonpea comes from India. It is grown mainly in the states Utter Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Andha Pradesh. The pigeonpea is cultivated in more than 25 country of the world and grown on area of about 4.59 million hectares with the production of 3.28 million tons annually (Gangwar et al. 2009).

15 Dominant producers of this crop are the countries in Indian subcontinent, Africa and Central America. The leading producer is India, producing about 85% of the world s total produce and secures the first position with largest area of 3.25 million hectares with the production of 2.23 million tons annually. Pigeonpea yield in India varies from kg per hectare, but the national productivity of pigeonpea was only 625 kg pa- hectare, during 2010 (Anonymous, 2011b). Pigeonpea is an important legume crop grown and consumed in the tropics and semi-arid parts of the world. India is a major pulse producing country, sharing 36 and 28 per cent of the area and production of these crops, respectively. Out of total per cent of pulses production pigeonpea contributes 22 per cent of production (Anonymous, 2011b). Latest estimates for 2009r2010 indicate that the production of pulses in the country is 16.5 million tons from an area of lakh hectares (Anonymous, 2011a). In Maharashtra, during 2010, it was grown on an area of lakh hectares, yield obtained is 832 kg per hectares with the production of lakh tons (Anonymous, 2011c). The yield and productivity of pigeonpea is not satisfactory as compared to area under cultivation and, yield and productivity of other developed nations due to number of factors. Among many reasons responsible, attack of insect pests is major one. Over 250 species of insects belonging to 8 orders and 61 families have been reported by several workers (Davies and Lateef, 1977; Sekhar, et al, 1991; Khokhar and Singh, 1983).The important pests of this crop are Gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner, Plume moth Exelastis atomosa Walshigham, Pod fly Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch, Leaf Webber Eucosma critica Meyer, Pod bug Clavigrala gibbosa Spinola, Pod weevil Apion spp. Out of these Helicoverpa armigera, Exelastis atomosa and Melanagromyza obtusa

16 are important feeders of pigeonpea which are collectively refered to as the Tod Borer Complex. The gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a cosmopolitan, polyphagous insect pest attacking more than 181 host plants belonging to 45 botanical families in the Indian subcontinent The key pest status of H. armigera is due to larval structures which enhanced growth and fecundity relative to feeding on vegetative parts. The second most damaging pest of pigeonpea is Exelastis atomosa Walshigham (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae). The greenish-brown and fringed with hairs and spines larvae is the damaging stage to the crop. The young larvae bore in to unopened flower buds for consuming the developing anthers. The grown up larvae first scrape the surface of the pods and then bore into pods. The larvae never enter in the pods completely. The pest infests the pigeonpea crop during flowering, pod maturing and pod filling stage. The Pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch (Diptera: Agromyzidae) is small black fly, lays eggs through the wall of young pod, and is of economic importance only in the larval stages and is the major pest in medium and long duration varieties. Partially matured pods are used for egg laying than the tender or frilly matured pods. All the immature stages remain within the developing pod and are very difficult to monitor without dissecting the pod. Pod borer complex is serious constraint in production and productivity in India. They contribute a major cause for low yields such as, per cent pod damage and per cent grain damage (Awasthi and Bhatnager, 1983). According to Yadav and Chaudhary (1993) around 14 and 10 per cent pigeonpea pods were damaged by H. armigera and M. obtusa respectively. Pigeonpea pod damage due to different insect pests including H. armigera and E. atomosa varied from per cent (Lai et al., 1997). Bhuwaneshwari and

17 Balagumnathan (2002) reported that H. armigera caused 27 per cent damage to pigeonpea pod during The crop suffers heavy field losses due to pod borer and the present area and production is inadequate. To meet demand of increasing population, there is great scope to raise the production by evolving newer and promising cultivars of pigeonpea in field condition. Earlier workers screened some cultivars of pigeonpea against important pests. HAP-92 is less susceptible genotype to H. armigera where as ICPL- 87 shows least susceptibility to M. obtusa. UPAS-120 is most resistant to attack by M. obtusa and gives highest grain yield but in cultivars like Basant, PS-65, PS-66, there is a high level of damage caused by pod borer complex. The varities like HY-2, Phule T-l, Phule T-3, AS 71-37, BDN-1, BDN-2, PL-8790 and N-84 (Bhosale and Nawale, 1983) are less susceptible to attack of pest shown by workers in their field trials. There are several new resistance sources available in pigeonpea against H. armigera and pod fly. The genotypes like C-53, BC-189 (Chaudhary et al, 1980), T-21, H77-208, H77-216, T15-15, (Lai et al., 1985; Kabaria et al., 1990; Singh and Singh, 1991) recorded less damage by H. armigera. ICPL 6, PDE 54-2, ICP 7903, MA-1 (Sachan, 1990) and ICPL 332 (Anonymous, 1997) also showed promising resistance to H. armigera. Some genotypes like H-90, H-69, H-107, H- 111, H-250, H-254, H-290, C-2851, C-3342, C-3344 and P-54 showed resistance to pod fly, M. obtusa (Kooner et al, 1972 and Veda et al., 1975). A few varieties like ICP El, ICP 7941-El and ICP 716-5, PDA 89-2E, PDA 89-3E were identified as resistant to M. obtusa (Anonymous, 1997). Cultivars like GP-127, HY-4, Kanpur 23, ICP 188, ICP 1634, BP-172, BR-172, JA-3, C-ll, BDN-3 and LAG-30 showed multi species pod borer resistance (Lai et al., 1985).

18 Keeping these facts in min^the present investigation was undertaken with the following objectives, 1. To screen different interspecific hybrids of pigeonpea against pod borer complex. -Tur pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hub.) -Tur plume moth (Exelastis atomosa Wals.) -Tur pod fly {Melanagromyza obtusa Mall.) 2. To observe extent of green and dry pod damage by pod borer complex. 3. To assess extent of grain damage by pod borer complex to pigeonpea.

19 Review of Literature

20 CHAPTER - II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The pod borer complex in pigeonpea comprises of Helicoverpa armigera Hub., Exelastis atomosa Wals. and Melanagromyza obtusa Mall., which are the major pests of pigeonpea and reduce the yield to the extent of per cent (Anonymous, 1974). There is considerable information available on the aspects of chemical control of pod borer complex of pigeonpea, relatively less information is available on the population study of this pest, on promising cultivars under field conditions. The latest review of research undertaken by earlier scientists for pod boro: complex is presented under following subheads; 1. Screening of interspecific hybrids 2. Green and dry pod damage 3. Extent of grain damage 2.1 Screening of Interspecific hybrids Singh and Singh (1978) recorded seventeen insects among which only eight attained major status on early maturing pigeonpea. Khokhar and Singh (1984) reported 38 insect species but Naresh and Singh (1984) recorded only 10 insect species while Kashyap et al. (1990) recorded 21 insect species in succession on early maturing varieties. Bhatnager et al. (1983) reported that pod borer (H. armigera) is a serious pest of several cultivated crops and has attained global importance as alarming pest. It causes extensive damage to crops like cotton, pulses, tomato etc. It is widely spread throughout India and has been recorded feeding on 181 cultivated and uncultivated plant species belonging to 45 families. The quantitative yearly losses varied from 5-70 per cent. 6

21 Reed et ah (1989) reported that pod pest completes its life cycle within twenty-one days and only early cultivars of pigeonpea which are determinate-type are attacked. Lateef and Pimbert (1990) screened the entire ICRISAT pigeonpea collection of more than 14,000 pigeonpea accessions for reaction against pod borer. Several genotypes were identified which consistently suffered lower pod damage. Patel and Patel (19910 screened 13 early and 13 midlate maturing varieties of pigeonpea against H. armigera and other pigeonpea pests. None of the entries was completely free from the infestation of H. armigera. Bilapate et ah (1991) made observations on population of H. armigera on 7 cultivars of arhar in India from and The lowest number of eggs (3.66 per plant) was recorded on cultivar T- 21 and the lowest larval population of damage was recorded on BWSMR-1 followed by T-21. The larval populations were generally greater on early cultivar. Goyal et ah (1991) screened 11 early, 27 medium, and 4 late-maturing cultivars for pest reaction in pigeonpea. The average infestation of pod borer was from 5.7 to 25.5 per cent in pods and of podfly 9.5 to 24.6 per cent in seeds. Out of 42 varieties tested, the entries recording less than 10 per cent pod damage by pod borer were none in early group. BDN 2 (medium maturing) recorded highest pod borer infestation and lowest in ICP 81 and PPE For pod fly, variety T was more susceptible than BDN 2. PPE 45-2 and AL 57 were found superior than BDN 2 and T both. Bhadbhoot and BP 1809 (late maturing) recorded low infestation of both pests. Lai and Sachan (1992) conducted an experiment on controlling pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) in late pigeonpea through Host-plant resistance. Three pigeonpea lines PDA 88-IE (INAM 240), PDA 88-2E (GNG Local), and PDA 88-3 (ICP 1950) developed through 7

22 single plant selection have consistently shown resistance to pod fly at the Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur. These were evaluated at Hyderabad, Sehore, Kanpur and Varanasi, along with entries received from other centers, during rainy seasons. PDA 89-2E, PDA 88-2E, PDA 88-IE, and PDA 89-3E are highly promising against pod fly. The reduction in pod fly damage because of resistance was found to be from 50% (PDA 88-1E) to 68% (PDA 89-2E) based on 3 years. Raut et al. (1993) determined the most favourable sowing period for pigeonpea and the lowest infestation levels of H. armigera, E. atomosa, and M. obtusa. Sahoo and Patnaik (1993) screened total 8 genotypes from extra early group ( days). Further they reported that pigeonpea crop was attacked by 8 species of pod borers at various stages of pod development and observed that none of the cultivars was free from infestation by major species of borers. The extra maturing cultivars had the highest pod damage due to H. armigera (ICPL-87, 29.6 per cent damage) followed by the early and late maturing cultivars (C-ll was having 17.2 per cent pod damage due to borer), Mali and Patil (1994) studied field screening of pigeonpea genotypes against pod borer and pod fly. They found among seven genotypes GAUT and T-21 were least susceptible genotypes to all three insect pest, i, e. H. armigera and other pests with the highest yield potentials. Ekshinge et al. (1996) in a field experiment in at Pafbhani, Maharashtra, with short duration pigeonpea cv. ICPL-87, ICPL-151 and ICPL examined the effect of inter-row spacings of 30, 45 or 60 cm and intra-row spacings of 15 or 30 cm on infestation level by Heliothis armigera (H. armigera), Exelastis atomosa and Melanagromyza obtusa. H. armigera produced the highest percentage of damaged pods followed by E. atomosa and M. obtusa. ICPL-87 was the highest yielding cultivar and had the lowest level of pest infestation. 8

23 Spacing did not affect seed yield, however, infestation by H. armigera and M. obtusa was highest at the spacing of 30 x 15 cm. Nanda et al. (1996) screened germplasm accessions of cultivated and wild relatives of Cajanus has resulted in the identification with moderate resistance to H. armigera. Durairaj and Ganapathy (1997) and Das (1998) screened cultivated and wild relatives of Cajanas for identification of resistant varieties to H. armigera. The study also revealed that several germplasm accessions showed moderate resistance to pod borer H. armigera. Lai and Rathore (1999) reported 2033 accessions of pigeonpea against pod borer for three years and found PDA 88-2E, PDA 89-2E, PDA 92-IE, PDA 93-1E, T-21, NP- 15, ICPL-4, ICPL-91031, ICP-8860 and PPE-45 as moderate to H. armigera. Rao and Mohammad (1999) recorded moderate level of resistance of Bahar and T7 to H. armigera. Reddy and Singh (2001) conducted field experiments during kharif season of 1996 and 1997 to determine the extent of economic injury of H. armigera (at larval densities of 0, 1, 2, and. 3 larvae per plant) on pigeonpea. There was a strong negative correlation between larval density and grain yield in both years on an average, 1 larva per plant resulted in 6.57 and 6.08 per cent loss in grain yield during 1996 and 1997, respectively. The economic injury level of H. armigera on pigeonpea was 0.79 and 0.80 larvae per plant during 1996 and 1997 respectively. Devi et al. (2002) in Manipur conducted an experiment on pigeonpea pest incidence, where it was found that the pest started its activity in the month of February and continued till May. The larval population was very low during vegetative phase which increased gradually. Surana et al. (2002) conducted a field trial to determine the influence of pigeonpea genotype to the reaction of H. armigera and 9

24 other pests. Pigeonpea cultivars C-ll, WRG-47, WRG-53, TAT-9629, BDN-704, AKT-9726 and BSMR-736 were tested. Cultivars C-ll, ICPL-87119, WRG-47 and WRG-53 showed more damage due to pests as compared to other cultivars. The highest yield and yield potential was exhibited by WRG-47 (802 kg/ ha.) followed by TAT Rao et al (2003) studied the effect of duration of pigeonpea cultivars on pod damage by H. armigera. The study revealed that pod damage was lowest in the short duration cultivars and highest in long duration cultivars. Sharma (2003) identified several genotypes that consistently suffered lower pod damage. However these genotypes have not been widely used because the level of resistance was too low, and resistance may be associated with susceptibility to major fungal and viral pathogen and / or less preferred agronomic characters. Bhoyar et al. (2004) studied seasonal incidence of pigeonpea pod borer complex which revealed population build of pod borer, H. armigera from tire second week of October (42nd meteorological week) to first fortnight (7th meteorological week) with highest peak during the last week of November (48* meteorological week). H. armigera population build up showed no correlation with physical parameters. The tur plume moth, E. atomosa was most active from the second week of November (46th meteorological week) to second week of February (7* meteorological week), highest in last week of December (52nd meteorological week). E. atomosa population showed a negative correlation with temperature and relative humidity. Sinam Subharani and Singh (2004) studied on insect pest complex of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in agro-ecosystem of Manipur. The insect pest complex on pigeonpea was studied during under agro-climatic condition of Manipur, India to develop a suitable pest management strategy. A total of 30 insect pests were recorded on the crop in an overlapping manner from seedling to harvesting stage. 10

25 Srivastava and Sehgal (2005) evaluated 15 resistant pigeonpea cultivars against pod borer complex. Among the cultivars MPG 537, ICPL-151 and ICPL were least susceptible to Maruca testualis, MPG 664, MI 2, MI 16, ICPL-151 and ICPL were the least susceptible to H. armigera. ICPH-8, MPG 537, ICPL-84052, ICPL and ICPL-151 were least susceptible to M. obtusa. ICPL- 151 gives the highest yield. Arati Prasad et al. (2006) studied pest incidence of Helicoverpa armigera (Hub) in two consecutive seasons that was August to November 2004 and January to April The data revealed that moth catch were maximum from 36* to 41st meteorological week i.e., 3 to 22 moth per 3 traps (September- October) in 2004 and from 3rd to 6th meteorological week moths per 3 traps (January- February) in The average number of larvae per meter was maximum during 38th meteorological week, that is 12 larvae per meter (September) and 21 larvae per meter in 5th meteorological week (29th January to 4* February) during Jaagrati Jain (2006) studied on preliminary screening of pigeonpea genotypes for multiple disease and insect resistance. A survey was carried out to identify pigeonpea genotypes with combined resistance to two major insect pests. Helicoverpa armigera (pod borer) and Melanagromyza obtusa (pod fly). Testing of 35 accessions, including the 5 multiple disease resistant genotypes, for insect pest resistance under field condition further identified ICP that had combined moderate resistance; ICP was also further identified as pod borer and pod fly tolerant genotype. Kooner and Cheema (2006) screened eighty nine genotypes of pigeonpea in the field for four years (2001 to 2004) to isolate sources of resistance to pod borers. On the basis of per cent pod damage and Pest Susceptibility Rating (PSR), entries AL 1498, AL 1502 and AL 1340 were found promising with mean pod damage of to ii

26 13.71 per cent (PSR ) as compared to to per cent (PSR 4.00 to 5.50) on the check varieties (AL15, AL201 and T21) and per cent (PSR 6.00) on the Infester. Therefore, genotypes AL 1498, AL 1502 and AL 1340 may be used as resistant donors in the crossing programme to evolve pod borer resistant/tolerant varieties of pigeonpea. Balikai and Yelshetty (2008) studied on insect pest scenario of pigeonpea in Northen Karnataka carried the field survey and recorded that Helicoverpa armigera and Aceria cajani were major pests of this crop, as both pests caused more than 51 per cent damage to the crop. Megalurothrips usitatus, Empoasca kerri, Clavigralla gibbosa, Exelastis atomosa, Melanagromyza obtusa and Mylabris pustulata were moderately damaging pests (31-50 per cent). Gangwar et al. (2009) screened 72 inter-specific plant progenies, derived by crossing wild species viz., Cajanus cajanifolius, C. acutifolius and C. scarabaeoides and cultivated lines viz., UPAS 120, Pant A 134 and ICPL in the field to isolate sources of resistance to pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera). Pest Susceptibility Rating (PSR) and reaction were worked out for pod and seed damage in all F3 progenies under study. On the basis of pest susceptibility reaction, all 24 F3 populations derived by utilizing wild species, C. scarabaeoides were found highly resistant (HR) for pod and seed damage due to pod borer in protected as well as unprotected condition as compared to cultivated parents. Though moderately susceptible reaction (MS) was recorded in UPAS 120 x C. acutifolius and ICPL x C. cajanifolius and UPAS 120 x C. cajanifolius were noted highly resistant (HR). Pant A134 x C. cajanifolius showed the least susceptible reaction (LS) in unprotected condition. Prajapati et al. (2010) conducted pest succession studies during hharif season of in pigeonpea. The gram pod borer appeared at 14 weeks after sowing (WAS), reaching its peak activity at 12

27 20. Subsequently, pod bug, pod fly and tur plume moth appeared simultaneously as single group in the crop at 15 WAS. Pod fly remained active from pod filling till harvesting. During the reproductive stage of the crop, incidence of thrips was noticed. Initially, it multiplied slowly and later on increased at faster rate leading to the peak level at 20 WAS. Thus, the activity of majority of pests was confined between 12 and 20 WAS. 2.2 Green and dry pod damage Sharma and Pandey (1991) recorded the losses due to H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa in pigeonpea during and and were to the extent of and per cent in cultivar UPAS-120, respectively. Anonymous (1992) reported variety' ICPL-332 as tolerant to the pod borer H. armigera and having an average 35 per cent borer damaged pods as against the cultivars C-ll (having 51 per cent borer damaged pods) and BDN-1 (having 65 per cent) in pesticide free fields aticrisat. Srivastava et al. (1993) compared 37 pigeonpea cultivars for field resistance to M. obtusa and H. armigera. The pod damage ranged from (MLT-6) to per cent (JA-3) in early maturity group. None of the early maturity cultivars were free from pest infestation. But pod damage was non-significant among all the cultivars, pod damage ranged from to per cent in the late maturity group, significantly low infestation occurred in MLT-31 and MLT-25 (56.56 per cent) was the most susceptible to pod damage followed by MLT-35 (54.29). Ajayi et al (1995) reported observations on insect pest damage to pigeonpea in Nigeria. In survey, pod and seed damage varied among states. Pod damage was greatest in Delta (40 per cent) and least in Niger (5 per cent) while seed damage was highest in Delta (27 per cent) and lowest in Plateau (5 per cent). Most of the damage had been 13

28 caused by lepidopteron pod borers. The relation between cropping system and insect damage to pigeonpea also studied. Ratoon crops suffered the most damage, followed by pigeonpea intercropped with maize and sorghum and the intercropping with rice results lowest insect pest damage. Gouse Mohammed and Subba Rao (1998) grow postrainy season pigeonpea with certain intercrops as a component of Helicoverpa management was tried during the and seasons at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. The result indicated that the number of larvae per 20 twigs of pigeonpea during flowering and podding stages was significantly reduced in pigeonpea intercropped with different crops. In terms of pod damage pigeonpea intercropped with sorghum {Sorghum bicolor) had significantly less damage (9.7 per cent) than sole pigeonpea (15.2 per cent). The other combinations, cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) (12.4 per cent) snap melon {Cucumis pepo) (14.6 per cent), Green gram (Vigna radiata) (14.9 per cent) were at par with sole pigeonpea. Sahoo and Senapati (2001) conducted field trial during kharif at the Central Agril. Research Station, O.V.A.T., Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa, India to assess pod damage (%), seed damage (%) and seed loss (%) by each borer species in different pigeonpea cultivar viz. UPAS-120 (early), C 11 (medium) and PUS A (late). The pod borer together damaged 57.07, and 40,08 per cent pods and 34.79,30.90 and per cent seeds in yield losses of28.07,21.01 and per cent in early, medium and late maturing cultivars respectively. Srivastava and Mohapatra (2002) evaluated fifteen medium duration pigeonpea genotypes to study the extent of pod damage due to lepidopterous pod borers. The extent of pod damage inflicted by LPBs varied from 1.0 to 6.3 per cent. Pest susceptible rating showed that the genotype ICP-8863 suffered the highest pod damage caused by LPBs, while the lowest was in KM-124 and KM

29 Sidde Gowda et al. (2002) conducted experiment at the Agriculture research Station, Gulberga to develop IPM modules for pod borer. Based on the results, a sound viable and effective IPM module has been developed. The average number of good pod per plant did not vary among IPM (117.15) and non-ipm fields (109.63). The pod damage recorded in IPM fields 7.8 per cent was less than the non-ipm fields. Seed yield was 985 kg per ha in IPM fields and 500 kg per ha in non-ipm fields. Sunil Kumar et al. (2003) studied on assessment of pod damage caused by pod borer complex in pre-rabi pigeonpea. An experiment was conducted in Bihar, India, during to determine pod damage and yield loss in pigeonpea. Pod borers damaged the pods differently depending on the various crop growth stages. Out of four major pod borers, Maruca virata caused only 0.1 to 2.1 per cent pod damage, while H. armigera caused the maximum pod damage ( per cent). The remaining pod borers i.e. Apion clavipes and Melanagromyza obtusa caused and per cent pod damage. Vanam Sunitha et al. (2008) screened six promising short duration pigeonpea genotypes i.e. ICPL 98001, ICPL 98002, ICPL , ICPL 98008, ICPL and ICPL against Maruca vitrata (Geyer) under field, green house and laboratory conditions. ICPL recorded significantly higher pod damage (68 per cent) as compared to ICPL (51 per cent) and ICPL (49 per cent) which were at par with each other. The pod damage recorded in ICPL was per cent The lowest pod damage was recorded in ICPL (5.80 per cent) and ICPL (6.77 per cent). ICPL and ICPL recorded lowest resistance rating of 0.25 and 0.35, respectively and were categorized as highly and moderately resistant genotypes. 15

30 23 Extent of grain damage Katiyar et al. (1981) found that the main pod damage and loss in yield per plant from 8.4 and 0.9 (UPAS-120) to 29.1 and 4.7 (ICPL-92). This indicates that early cultivars give greater yield in spite of greater Helicoverpa attack during their vulnerable stage. Awasthi and Bhatnager (1983) reported that the examination of about pods of pigeonpea from 5 different areas of Manipur district of Uttar Pradesh that average of per cent of grains were damaged by pod borers. Talekar (1988) observed the damage caused by agromyzid Melanagromyza obtusa to pigeonpea pod in Taiwan in and found that when 375 pods were observed, 52.8 per cent were damaged and 43.3 per cent of seeds infested. Kabaria et al. (1988) reported the per cent damage due to pests of pigeonpea by larvae of H. armigera and to seed by M. obtusa. Mean damage ranged from 3.6 to 9.1 per cent and from 2.6 to 11.2 per cent for the pests respectively, total mean damage averaged 4.5 and 9.7 per cent for H. armigera and 9.8 and 3.9 per cent for M. obtusa. Srivastava and Srivastava (1989) recorded that the extent of damage during the podding stage can be reduced by selecting genotypes that flower and mature before or after the peak abundance of H armigera and suffer low damage than those flowering during the periods of greatest insect abundance. Thakur et al. (1989) showed that 21.6 per cent pods of pigeonpea in treated field and per cent of grains were damaged by H. armigera as compared with 43.7 per cent and per cent respectively in untreated field. The corresponding percentages for M. obtusa were 23.4 and 12.5,41.57 and per cent. Kabaria et al. (1990) conducted experiment during 1983 and 1984 at Gujarat on six popular cultivars BDN 1, BDN 2, Bhadhoot, Nylon, and T sown on six dates. In both years early varieties like 16

31 Pusa Aged and BDN 1 recorded highest damage of H. armigera which was followed by mid-late BDN 2 and T and lowest in Bhadhoot and Nylon. While pod fly damage was minimum in BDN 1 and maximum in Nylon. The highest grain yield recorded in Nylon (1.53 per cent) and Bhadhoot (1.44 per cent) and lowest in Pusa aged (0.78 per cent). The higher yield was recorded with sowing done at onset of monsoon and delayed sowing decreased the yield linearly and significantly. Sharma et al. (1991) conducted field studies to determine the losses in yield of pigeonpea variety UPAS-120 caused by H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa when plots ware sprayed with insecticide or left untreated. The yield in plots treated with insecticide was 8.40 kg compared to 3.53 kg in untreated plot. The avoidable loss was calculated to be per cent Gosalwad et al. (1992) conducted field experiment during in Maharashtra to assess crop losses in pigeonpea and to determine the most critical growth period of the crop for protection against H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa. Per cent avoidable crop losses in number of healthy pod per plant, 1000 grains weight and grain yield were 52.24, and per cent respectively. The most critical growth period was between days and application of insecticide during this period resulted in highest yield. Hong et al. (1992) carried out survey on six short duration genotypes to identify major insect pests of pigeonpea in the five experimental fields situated in different provinces: Hanoi, Ha Bac and Vinch Phu in North and Thuan Hai in South of Vietnam. In North Vitenam, M. testulalis was found to be more serious and in Thuan hai pigeonpea suffered mainly from H. armigera, damaging up to 70 per cent pods. Percentage of damaged pod and seed of six genotypes ranged from 98 to 100 per cent for pod damage and 88 to 97 per cent for seed damage under unprotected condition. 17

32 Misra (1993) conducted experiments during and with 66 pigeonpea varieties to find out susceptibility of pod fly. UPAS 120, Mukta, ICPL 84066, ICPL recorded lowest infestation (5 per cent) and ICPL recorded highest infestation (32.98 per cent) of M. obtusa. The highest yield of 1.76 tons per ha was recorded in ICPL 6, ICPL 84061, ICPL , ICPL 85015, and ICPL The lowest yield recorded in ICPL ( tons per ha), ICPL ( tons per ha) and ICPL ( tons per ha). Raut et al. (1993) conducted field screening for 42 varieties of pigeonpea, sown during kharif for resistance to pod borer complex. H was significantly better than all other varieties tested, with a grain infestation rate of 11.4 per cent The yield loss was least in CORG 13 (8.88 per cent) and H (9.87 per cent). Yield per plant was greatest in BDN 33 (20.59 per cent) followed by MTH 16 (19.69 g). Sharma and Pandey (1993) observed losses due to insect pests of pigeonpea mainly Heliothis armigera, E. atmosa and M. obtusa in cultivars UPAS-120 (early), BDN-1 (medium), and G-3 (late maturing) losses in the year and were respectively per cent and per cent in UPAS-120, per cent and per cent in BDN-1 and per cent and per cent in G-3. Yadav and Chaudhary (1993) reported that H. armigera damaged 13.6 and 13.7 per cent pod and 5.3 per cent grains during 1984 and 1985 respectively. However, during the same years, M. obtusa caused damage to pods and grains to the extent of 10.1 and 3.5 per cent and 9.4 and 3.1 per cent Durairaj et al. (1996) studied incidence of pod fly (M. obtusa) on Vamban-1 cultivar ( days duration). Per cent pod fly damage was assessed from 300 grains. Crops sown during April and May recorded very low damage (5.5 per cent), while the February sown 18

33 crop had very high damage of 68 per cent The sowing in October, July, and August recorded a moderate level of damage (10-20 per cent). Dahiya et al. (1999) studied the susceptibility of short duration pigeonpea variety Manak to pod borer in relation to different sowing times in Sonipat District, Haryana during The early sown crop recorded less than 10 per cent pod damage and 20 to 40 per cent in mid-may and mid-june sown crop. Grain yield decreased with delay sowing. The early sown pigeonpea, yield well on account of low pod borer damage. Bhuwaneshwari and Balagurunathan (2002) studied on pod borer complex of pigeonpea in Tamil Nadu. Two field trials were conducted during and to assess the damage caused by the pod borer complex to pigeonpea crops in Tamil Nadu. The major pod borer recorded during the period included gram pod borer (Helicaverpa armigera). Plume moth (Exelastis atomosa) and Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa). In both trials, H. armigera was recorded as the major pest resulting in pod damage of 27 and 17.3 per cent in untreated plots during and , respectively. Anitha Kumari et al. (2006) evaluated 12 pigeonpea genotypes with different levels of resistance to Helicaverpa armigera (Hub) based on loss in grain yield under field condition. Loss in grain yield was less than 29 per cent in ICPL 84060, ICPL 332, and ICPL as compared to 87.2 per cent in ICPL 87. Genotypes such as ICPL 332, ICPL 187-1, and ICPL 84060, which suffered low pod damage or low reduction in grain yield, can be used for management of the H. armigera, as a source of resistance in pigeonpea. 19

34 Materials and Methods

35 CHAPTER - III MATERIAL AND METHODS In Miarif season of 2010, the field trials were undertaken on the experimental field of Department of Agricultural Botany, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani to screen pigeonpea interspecific derivatives against pod borer complex i.e., tur pod borer, plume moth -and pod fly. Screening of different cross lines of pigeonpea were also studied in this experiment The experiment was laid out in RBD in 16 treatments (Genotypes) replicated twice. The material used and methods followed are described below. 3.1 Experimental site The experiment was conducted in Miarif 2010 at experimental field of Department of Agricultural Botany, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, Maharashtra (India). Parbhani situated on N latitude and E longitudes with an altitude of408.5 meter from mean sea level. 3.2 Soil type A typical black cotton soil with medium fertility and fairly good drainage was selected as an experimental site. 33 Weather conditions Parbhani has subtropical climate. The mean maximum temperature of Parbhani varies from 29 C (in December) to 45 C (in May) and minimum temperature varies from 11 C to 25 C in winter and summer seasons, respectively. The mean relative humidity ranges from 30 to 90 per cent. The average rainfall of Parbhani is about 800 to 900 mm received mostly during June to September. 20

36 3.4 Details of experiments Experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design with, 16 treatments and some cross lines and replications as follows. 1. Design Randomized Block Design 2. Plot size 4.5 mx 1.5 m 3. Number of replication Two 4. Number of treatments Sixteen (4 checks + 4 Female genotypes + 8 Male genotypes) 5. Spacing 75 cm x 30 cm 6. Season Kharif, Distance between two replication 1.0 m 8. Distance between two plots 0.8 m 9. Date of sowing 2 July, Method of sowing Dibbling 11. Fertilizers 25:50:00 NPK kg/ha 3.5 Details of Treatment In the present experiment, 16 treatments and cross lines under unprotected condition were tried. 3.6 Preparatory tillage operations The experimental land was ploughed once, harrowed twice before sowing of crop. Farm yard 10 cartloads per hectare was applied at the time of last harrowing. The fertilizers were applied at the rate of25:50:00 kg NPK /ha. 3.7 Sowing The sowing was done by dibbling on 2nd July, Two to four seeds were dibbled at each hill. After 15 days of germination only two healthy plants per hill were maintained. 21

37 3.8 Irrigation Two irrigations were given as protective irrigation, since rains were insufficient, during flowering and pod formation period. 3.9 Methods of recording observations Evaluation of performance of different genotypes To evaluate the performance of different genotypes, five plants from each genotype were selected and tagged with wax coated paper tags for observation. At green pod stage 100 pods from observation plants were collected separately from each genotype and percentage of green pod damage were worked out Five randomly selected plants were observed for days to flower, pod and grain colour, maturity time, grain size and number of locales per pod to evaluate the performance of selected genotypes Larval count for pod borer complex Five plants from each net plot were selected randomly and labeled with white tags. Field observations on larval population were taken at weekly interval starting from bud initiation Pod borer complex The total number of pods and infested pods by pod borer complex collected separately from earlier labeled five observation plants in each plot The infested pods were further divided into individual borer damage on the basis of nature of damage suggested by Davies and Lateef (1977). Gram pod borer (H. armigera) - Pods with large circular holes were considerd as damage by the H. armigera. Tut plume moth (E. atomosa) - The holes made by the larvae of plume moth were small or medium sized as compared to holes made by H. armigera. The pods showing holes opposite to attachment of seed in the pods and without or partially eaten grains with blackish excreta was accounted for the damage by plume moth. 22

38 Tur pod fly (M. obtusa) - The seeds showing typical gnawing, burrowing and shriveled symptoms caused by pod fly maggots were carefully separated. The damaged pods were brownish in colour with pin holes externally, from which adults emerged Pod and Grain damage The grain damage by different pests i.e., pod borer and pod fly were recorded after harvest. At harvest, five plants were randomly selected from each plot and observed for the pod borer damage. The percentage of pod damage was calculated by counting the total number of healthy pods and infested pods. The 100 randomly selected pods at harvest were observed for the number of seeds damaged by the borer and pod fly. Finally percentage of grain damage was calculated Statistical analysis The data obtained in percentage were subjected to angular transformation and data on larval counts were transformed by using Poissons formula Vx + 0,5 before analysis. The percentage infestation of pods and grains was calculated on the basis of healthy and damaged pods and grains. The data were subjected to statistical analysis. The yield data were converted kg/ha and analyzed. 23

39 Plate 1. Field layout of pigeonpea screening experiment

40 RI rh 4.5 m Tj rri i10 1.5m N T2 t9 36 m t3 T, t4 Ts t6 t7 t8 t9 t7 np ig Ts t4 t3 Tj Tio T, Tu T,6 T12 Ti3 Tm Tis T14 Ti3 t m Genotypes Tl-BSMR 736 (CH) T2-BDN 708 (CH) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) T4-BSMR 853 (CH) T5-ICP 7193 T6-ICP 9939 T7-ICP T8-ICP T9-BSMR 243 T10-BSMR 846 Tll-BSMR 174 T12-BSMR 175 T13-ICPA 2043 T14-ICPA 2047 T15-ICPA 2092 T16-ICPA 2078 Net plot size: 4.5 m x 1.5 m T1S Ti2 Figure 1: Layout for evaluation Tl«w I m nr1 of pigeonpea genotypes. ^ m.. 24

41 Results and Discussion

42 CHAPTER - IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the present investigation;field trials were undertaken to screen genotypes for pod borer complex and their performance for specific characters in relation to pod borer damage. Observations were also recorded on effect of genotypes of pigeonpea on the incidence of H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa. During the course of this investigation, sixteen genotypes of pigeonpea comprising, 4 checks, 4 female genotypes and 8 male genotypes were screened for pod borer complex under natural condition. The cross lines of 4 female genotypes with 8 male genotypes of pigeonpea also included in this investigations. The results obtained are presented and discussed under the following heads; 4.1. a) Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.1. b) Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea 4.2. a) Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.2. b) Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea 4.3. a) Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.3. b) Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea 4.4. a) Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.4. b) Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigenpea 25

43 4.5. a) Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.5. b) Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea 4.6. Evaluation of different genotypes for specific characters in relation to pod damage by pod borer complex in pigeonpea 4.7. a) Grain yield (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea 4.7. b), Grain yield (kg) of different cross lines of pigeonpea 4.1. a) Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea The results on eggs population of H. armigera on different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in Table 1 and graphically represented in fig. 2. The data given in Table 1 indicate that almost all the entries recorded significantly less number of eggs except check Tj- BSMR 736 (2.800) recorded highest number of eggs over all genotypes and checks. Whereas in comparison with the check T - BSMR 736, other checks T2-BDN 708 (0.975), T3-ICPH 2671 (0.800) and T4-BSMR 853 (1.910) recorded less number of eggs of H. armigera. The mean values of other parental genotypes of pigeonpea for number of eggs of H. armigera were compared with all four checks. T5-ICP 7193 (0.760), T6-ICP 9939 (0.850), T -BSMR 174 and Tir BSMR 175 showed significant resistance when compared with check Tj-BSMR 736, however genotypes Tg-ICP (0.925) and Tig-ICPA 2078 (1.115) over the check T4-BSMR 853. Genotypes TrICP (1.300), T10-BSMR 846 (1.475) and T13-ICPA 2043 (1.575) were observed to be susceptible, with more number of eggs of H. armigera over the check T3-ICPA 2671 (0.800). Whereas genotypes T9-BSMR 243 (1.825), T14-ICPA 2047 (1.925) and T15-ICPA 2092 (1.810) recorded higher number of eggs of H. armigera 26

44 Table 1. Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Mean number of eggs of H. armigera TrBSMR736(CH) (1.815) T2-BDN 708 (CH) (1.210) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) (1.139) T4-BSMR-853 (CH) (1.552) T5-ICP (1.120) T6-ICP (1.161) T7-ICP (1.339) T8-ICP (1.193) T9-BSMR (1.523) Tjo-BSMR (1.405) Tn-BSMR (1.117) TirBSMR (1.083) T13-ICPA (1.440) T14-ICPA (1.557) T,5-ICPA (1.519) Ti6-ICPA (1.284) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are V x transformed values. 27

45 II T2 T3 T4 TS T6 T7 18 T9 T10 Til T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 Genotypes Fig. 2. Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different genotypes of pigeonpea s33a jo jaqwnn

46 over the check T2-BDN 708 (0.975). Such type of observations were obtained by earlier research workers as: In 1990, Patel and Patel screened 26 varieties of pigeonpea against H. armigera and reported that none of the entries were completely free from infestation by H. armigera. Lateef and Pimbert (1990) screened the entire ICRISAT pigeonpea collection and identified several genotypes which consistently suffered lower pod damage. Prajapati et al. in 2010, conducted pest succession studies during and reported that the gram pod borer {H. armigera) appeared at 14 weeks after sowing, reaching its peak activity at 20 weeks after sowing. The activity of majority of pests was confined between 12 and 20 WAS b) Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea The results on eggs population of H. armigera on different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 2 and graphically represented in fig. 3. The date given in Table 2 indicate that almost all the entries recorded significantly less number of eggs except cross lines ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (2.300), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (2.075), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 (2.075), ICPA 2078 x ICP (2.075) and ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 (1.975) recorded higher number of eggs of H. armigera, whereas the cross lines ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846 (0.850), ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193 (0.675), ICPA 2047 x ICP (0.775), ICPA 2047 x ICP (0.600), ICPA 2078 x ICP 7193 (0.535) and thelcpa 2078 x BSMR 243 (0.750) recorded lowest number of eggs of H. armigera over cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR

47 Table 2. Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea Cross lines Mean number of eggs of H. armigera ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.204) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.466) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.491) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.491) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (1.506) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (1.161) ICPA2092 xbsmr (1.392) ICPA2092 xbsmr (1.181) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.083) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.254) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.129) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.048) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.244) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.604) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.422) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.573) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.425) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.457) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.292) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.506) ICPA2043 xbsmr (1.466) ICPA 2043 x BSMR (1.673) ICPA2043 xbsmr (1.341) ICPA2043 xbsmr (1.604) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.015) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.350) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.448) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.604) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.117) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.214) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.457) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.246) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parenthesis are Vx transformed values. 29

48 in (N hh H* MHH Mi m o % w P, O') <G, <CK S <*/. cp, <X) * % <&. ' <> 'v. <*- <k, V- <Q' v9- *'0 4o X \ V<v V >/ V> v\x \\V ^W" fav' vv*v *vv> X *+ % <4, ^ %(S+\ ' v+v V<V ' V *& ~<Z rx * w* vv\ o, MU ^ V J.o J-v, <2^ A \ <fc. <V ^o ^ '%>. ft o, Vv% VHV* *,vv -X ^y. % % v iy Cross lines Fig. 3, Mean number of eggs of H. armigera Hub. on different cross lines of pigeonpea s33a jo jaqoinn

49 The cross lines like, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243 and ICPA 2043 x ICP showed significant resistance when compared with cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846. However, ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 over the cross line ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175. i The cross lines ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174 and ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 were susceptible lines, observed high number of eggs of H. armigera over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 recorded low number of eggs of H. armigera as compared to ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175. earlier workers as: The present findings are in agreement with the finding of In 2003, Rao et al. studied the effect of duration of pigeonpea on pod damage by H. armigera. The study revealed that pod damage was lowest in the short duration cultivars and highest in long duration cultivars. Srivastava and Sehgal (2005) evaluated 15 resistant pigeonpea cultivars against pod borer complex. MPG 664, MI 2, MI 16, ICPL 151 and ICPL were found to be least susceptible cultivars to H armigera. Kooner and Cheema (2006) screened eighty nine genotypes of pigeonpea in the field for four years to isolate sources of resistance to pod borers. On the basis of per cent pod damage and Pest Susceptibility Rating, entries AL 1498, AL 1502 and AL 1340 were found promising with mean pod damage of to per cent. 30

50 Cross lines of pigeonpea recorded less number of eggs of H. armigera as compared to genotypes a) Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea The results on larval population of H. armigera Hub, E. atomosa Wals. and M. obtusa Mall, on different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in Table 3 and graphically represented in fig. 4. The data given in Table 3 showed that almost all the entries recorded significantly less number of //. armigera larvae except check TrBSMR 736 (2.460) which recorded higher number of larvae whereas remaining check TrBDN 708 (1.420), T3-ICPH 2671 (1.435) and T4-BSMR 853 (1.435) recorded low number of larvae of H. armigera. When mean values of other parental genotypes of pigeonpea for number of larvae of //. armigera were compared with all four checks, it is found that T10-BSMR 846, T13-ICPA 2043, T14-ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 were more susceptible over the check T2-BDN 708. However TS-ICP 7193, T6-ICP 9939, T7-ICP 12320, TirBSMR 174 and T!6-ICPA 2078 recorded significant resistance over check Tr BSMR 736. The genotypes Tg-ICP 12057, T9-BSMR 243 and Tir BSMR 175 recorded significantly low number of larvae of H. armigera in comparison with checks and parental genotypes. The present results are discussed in the light of findings of previous workers as: In 1991, Bilapate et al. made observations on H. armigera on 7 cultivars of arhar in India from and and recorded

51 Table 3. Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Helicoverpa armigera Exelastis atomosa Melanogromyza obtusa TrBSMR 736 (CH) (1.720) (1.435) (1.212) T2-BDN 708 (CH) (1.385) (1.140) (1.110) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) (1.388) (1.131) (1.138) T4-BSMR-853 (CH) (1.390) (1.037) (1.072) T5-ICP (1.339) (1.264) (1.106) T6-ICP (1.319) (1.311) (0.883) Ty-ICP (1.337) (1.271) (0.989) Tg-ICP (1.218) (1.072) (0.996) T9-BSMR (1.224) (1.179) (1.264) T10-BSMR (1.596) (1.208) (1.088) T -BSMR (1.360) (1.271) (1.048) T,2-BSMR (1.298) (1.396) (1.272) T13-ICPA (1.566) (1.424) (1.135) T,4-ICPA (1.545) (1.451) (1.234) T15-ICPA (1.519) (1.271) (0.992) T16-ICPA (1.323) (1.421) (1.035) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are Vx transformed values. 32

52 H. armigera m E. atomosa u M. obtusa T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 17 T8 T9 T10 T il T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 Genotypes Fig. 4. Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different genotypes of pigeonpea ro m r>i in t-i m o rsi *h d acaiei p jaquinm

53 lowest larval population on cultivars T-21 and BWSMR-1. The highest larval population was recorded on early cultivars. In 2001, Reddy and Singh conducted field experiment during kharif season of to determine extent of economic injury of H. armigera on pigeonpea and reported that there was a strong negative correlation between larval density and grain yield in both years. Srivastava and Sehgal in 2005 evaluated 15 resistant pigeonpea cultivars against pod borer complex. Among the cultivars MPG 664, MI 2, MI 16, ICPL 151 and ICPL were the least susceptible to H. armigera. Regarding lame of E. atomosa Wals all genotypes recorded lower number of larvae except TrBSMR 736 (1.560) recorded high number of larvae as compared with other checks T2-BDN '708 (0.800), T3-ICPH 2671 (0.780) and T4-BSMR 853 (0.580) which recorded lower number of larvae of E. atomosa. When mean values of all four check were compared with parental genotypes, it is found that, the parental genotypes T12-BSMR 175, T,3-ICPA 2043, T14-ICPA 2047 and T16-ICPA 2078 were more susceptible over the check T4-BSMR 853. However, TS-ICP 7193, T8- ICP 12057, T9-BSMR 243 and T10-BSMR 846 recorded significant resistance over the check Tj-BSMR 736. The genotypes, T6-ICP 9939, TrICP 12320, TirBSMR 174 and T15-ICPA 2092 recorded lower number of larvae of E. atomosa over the check T3-ICPH earlier research workers as: The above findings are comparable with the results of S3

54 Eggs Larva Pupa Adults Plate 2. Tur Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera)

55 . Patel and Patel (1991) tabulated the data on the reaction of 13 varieties of pigeonpea to H. armigera, E. aiomosa and M. obtusa. The cultivars GAUT , GAUT 82-99, GAUT observed to be free of infestation by E. atomosa. Devi et al. (2002) in Manipur conducted an experiment on piegeonpea pest incidence, where it was found that the pest started its activity in the month of February and continued till May. The larval population was very low during vegetative phase which increased gradually. In 2004, Bhoyar et al. studied seasonal incidence of pigeonpea pod borer complex, which revealed that tur plume moth, E. atomosa was most active from the second week of November to second week of February, highest in last week of December. 1 In case of pod fly, M. obtusa Mall, all genotypes recorded very low number of larvae except the parental genotypes T9-BSMR 243 (1.100), T12-BSMR 175 (1.120) and T14-ICPA 2047 (1.025) recorded high number of larvae M. obtusa. The checks TpBSMR 736 (0.970), T2- BDN 708 (0.735), T3-ICPH 2671 (0.805) and T4-BSMR 853 (0.650) observed to be less susceptible as compared with parental genotypes T12-BSMR175. When mean values of all given checks of pigeonpea for number of pod fly were compared with other parental genotypes, it was observed that genotypes T6-ICP 9939, TrICP 12320, T15-ICPA 2092 and Ti6-ICPA 2078 showed significant resistance over the check Tr BSMR736. The genotypes TS-ICP 7193, T10-BSMR 846, T -BSMR 174 and Tj3-ICPA 2043 recorded higher number of larvae of M. obtusa over the genotypes T6-ICP 9939 (0.280) these genotypes were susceptible to attack of M. obtusa. 34

56 Above findings are in agreement with the finding of earlier workers as: Lai and Sachan (1992) found that PDA 89-2E, PDA 88-2E, PDA 88-1E and PDA 89-3E are highly promising against pod fly. In 2005, Srivastava and Sehgal evaluated 15 resistant pigeonpea cultivars against pod borer complex and found that cultivars ICPH 8, MPG 537, ICPL 84052, ICPL and ICPL 151 were least susceptible to M. obtusa.. Jaagrati Jain (2006) reported ICP and ICP were resistance genotypes to pod fly b) Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea The results on larval population of H. armigera Hub, E. atomosa Wals and M. obtusa Mall on different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 4 and graphically represented in fig. 5. The data from Table 4 showed that all entries recorded low number of H. armigera. Out of all cross lines ICPA x ICP 9939 (2.100), ICPA 2092 x ICP (2.055), ICPA 2092 x ICP (2.200) and ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (1.985) recorded higher number of larvae of H armigera. Whereas cross lines ICPA 2092 x BSMR. 243 (0.585), ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939 (0.405) and ICPA 2043 x ICP (0.600) recorded lowest number of larvae of H. armigera. Less number of larvae of H. armigera were observed on the cross lines ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2047 x ICP12057, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174 observed less number of larvae of H. armigera as compared to cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP (2.200). ICPA 2043 x ICP and ICPA 35

57 Table 4. Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea Cross lines Helicoveipa Exelastis Melanogromyza armigera atomosa obtusa ICPA 2092 xlcp (1.377) (1.240) (1.165) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.584) (1.005) (0.992) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.598) (1.170) (1.181) ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.642) (1.216) (1.244) ICPA 2092 xfismr (1.041) (1.072) (1.088) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (1.067) (1.417) (0.929) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (1.396) (1.371) (1.176) ICPA 2092 x BSMR (1.362) (1.232) (1.210) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.212) (1.090) (1.040) ICPA 2047 x ICP (0.950) (1.232) (1.182) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.083) (1.248) (1.088) ICPA 2047 x ICP (1.172) (1.319) (1.104) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.165) (1.264) (1.072) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.576) (1.403) (1.212) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.286) (1.271) (1.182) ICPA2047 xbsmr (1.501) (1.208) (1.176) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.083) (1.539) (1.046) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.060) (1.256) (0.932) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.048) (1.081) (1.088) ICPA 2043 x ICP (1.474) (0.994) (0.974) ICPA2043 xbsmr (1.206) (1.410) (1.182) ICPA2043 xbsmr (1.228) (1.479) (1.009) ICPA2043 xfismr (1.206) (0.927) (1.104) ICPA2043 xfismr (1.228) (1.090) (1.060) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.496) (1.216) (1.216) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.076) (1.182) (1.301) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.228) (1.240) (1.367) ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.360) (1.048) (1.385) ICPA2078 xfismr (1.133) (1.288) (1.197) ICPA 2078 x BSMR (1.280) (1.208) (0.873) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.326) (1.208) (0.894) ICPA2078 xbsmr (1.379) (1.296) (0.992) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parenthesis are V x transformed values. 36

58 m H. armlgera u E. atomosa u M. obtusa 2.5 Cross lines Fig. 5. Mean number of larvae of pod borer complex on different cross lines of pigeonpea ae/ueq 10 jaqwnn 0

59 2078 x ICP 7193 recorded higher number of larvae over cross line ICPA 2047 xicp 9939 (0.405). Cross lines, ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2078 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 showed significant resistance over the cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP Remaining cross lines showed significant resistance over the cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP as: The present findings were also observed by earlier worker In 1991, Goyal et al. screened 11 early, 27 medium and 4 late maturing cultivars for pest reaction in pigeonpea. Out of 42 varieties tested, the entries recorded less than 10 per cent pod damage by pod borer where none in early group. BDN 2 recorded highest pod borer infestation and lowest in ICP 81 and PPF Mali and Patil (1994) found T-21 and GAUT was the least susceptible genotypes against pests. The data for number of larvae of E. atomosa Wals. revealed that all entries recorded less number of larvae except the cross line ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193 (1.870) recorded highest number of larvae of E. atomosa. Whereas, ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939 (0.510), ICPA 2043 x ICP (0.490) and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174 (0.360) recorded lower number of larvae over the cross line ICPA 2043 x ICP On the cross lines, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846 (1.510), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (1.470), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 (1.490) and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (1.690) observed higher number of larvae of E. atomosa over the cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174. However, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174 (1.371), ICPA 2047 xicp (1.240), 37

60 Larva and pupa A. Adult Plate 3. Tur Plume moth (Exelastis atomosd)

61 ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174 (1.120), ICPA 2078 x BSMR 243 (1.160) and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 (1.180) over cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (1.690). Cross lines like ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939 and ICPA 2078 x ICP recorded higher number of larvae of over the cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174. Remaining cross lines showed significant resistance over the cross line ICPA 2043 x ICP as: Such types of findings are in agreement of earlier worker In 1993, Raut et al conducted a field trials in Maharashtra, tested 42 pigeonpea varieties for E. atomosa infestation that varieties ICPL 317, P 33, P869 and Co-5 showed least infestations. Surana et al (2002) conducted a field experiment to determine the influence of pigeonpea genotype to the reaction of pigeonpea pests. TAT 9629, BDN 704, AKT 9726 and WRG 47 recorded lowest infestation of pests. Prajapati et al (2010) conducted pest succession studies during kharif season of and reported that plume moth (E. atomosa) appeared at 15 weeks after sowing, which was continued up to 20 weeks after sowing. Regarding larvae of M. obtusa Mall., cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP (1.050), ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 (1.200), ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.370) and ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.420) recorded higher number of larvae of M. obtusa. Whereas, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846 (0.365), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 9939 (0.370), ICPA 2078 x BSMR 38

62 Adult Plate 4. Tur Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa)

63 846 (0.265) and ICPA 2078 * BSMR 174 (0.300) recorded lower number of larvae over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP (1.420). Cross lines like ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2078 x ICP 7193 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 243 observed to be highly resistance over cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP 12320(1.370). When mean value of the cross line ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 were compared with other cross lines, i.e. ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 and ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174 observed to be more susceptible cross lines. Whereas ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 xlcp 12057, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174 and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 recorded lower number of larvae over ICPA 2078 x ICP The remaining cross lines were observed to be resistant over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP as: The present findings are in agreement of earlier workers Goyal et al (1991) found T was more susceptible than BDN 2 for pod fly infestation. PPE 45-2 and AL 57 were found superior to BDN 2 and T both. Bhadbhoot and BP 1809 recorded low infestation of pod fly and other pests. In 1993, Raut et al. conducted experiment to determine the most favourable sowing period and the lowest infestation levels of H. armigera, E. atomosa andm obtusa. 39

64 4.3. a) Mean per cent green pod damage due to JET. armigera Hub. in different genotypes of pigeonpea The results on per cent green pod damage due to K armigera observed on different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in * Table 5 and graphically represented in fig. 6. From Table 5, it is clear that check Tj-BSMR 736 (30.12) and T4-BSMR 853 (27.88) recorded high per cent green pod damage over the check T2-BDN 708 (19.73) and T3-ICPH 2671 (16.34). When mean values of parental genotypes were compared with check for per cent green pod damage of H. armigera, the genotypes T9-BSMR 243, T10-BSMR 174, T -BSMR 175, TM-ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 recorded significant resistance over check Ti-BSMR 736. However, T6-ICP 9939, T7-ICP 12320, TrICP and T16- ICPA 2078 over check TrBDN 708. Remaining genotypes showed similar resistance over the check T3-ICPH Such type of findings are reported by Sharma and Pandey (1993) recorded the losses due to H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa in pigeonpea during and , which were to the extent of and per cent in cultivar UPAS-120, respectively. In 2003 Sunil Kumar et al. observed that pod borer damage to pods differently depending on the various crop growth stages. While the H. armigera caused maximum pod damage of 6.4 to 24.7 per cent. Vanam Sunitha et al. (2008) observed higher pod damage was in ICPL (68 per cent) and the lowest pod damage in ICPL (5.80 per cent) and ICPL (6.77 per cent). 40

65 Table 5. Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Per cent green pod damage due to H armigera TrBSMR736(CH) (33.28) T2-BDN 708 (CH) (26.36) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) (23.81) T4-BSMR-853 (CH) (31.86) T5-ICP (25.13) T6-ICP (20.84) T7-ICP (20.91) Tg-ICP (18.74) T9-BSMR (26.56) T10-BSMR (29.22) Tn-BSMR (27.38) T12-BSMR (29.42) T13-ICPA (24.79) T14-ICPA (26.62) T15-ICPA (27.00) T16-ICPA (22.17) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 41

66 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 18 T9 T10 T il T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 Genotypes Fig. 6. Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub, in different genotypes of pigeonpea aseiuep pod uaaj3 iuao jaj

67 Healthy pods Pod Borer damage {Helicoverpa armigera) Plume Moth damage (Exelastis atomosa) Pod Fly damage (Melanagromyza obtusa) Plate 5. Nature of pod damage by pod borer complex on pigeonpea

68 4.3. b) Mean per cent green pod damage due to JET. armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea The results on per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera observed on different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 6 and graphically represented in fig. 7. The data given in Table 6 indicate that all entries showed low per cent green pod damage except the cross lines ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (25.42), ICPA 2043 x ICP (23.93) and ICPA 2078 x ICP (27.02) recorded high per cent green pod damage. Whereas ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (9.30) recorded lowest per cent green pod damage. The cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 recorded low per cent green pod damage by H. armigera over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP However ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 over the cross line ICPA 2043 x ICP Cross lines like, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2078 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 observed to be more susceptible over the cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP Remaining cross lines recorded low per cent green pod damage over cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP The present findings are discussed in light of the findings of previous workers as: 42

69 Table 6. Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea Cross lines Per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera ICPA 2092 xlcp (17.72) ICPA2092 xlcp (26.22) ICPA 2092 x ICP (22.89) ICPA2092 xlcp (28.45) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (23.31) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (27.15 ICPA2092 xbsmr (21.72) ICPA2092 xbsmr (25.15) ICPA2047 xlcp (25.65) ICPA2047 xlcp (24.07) ICPA2047 xlcp (27.66) ICPA2047 xlcp (28.41) ICPA2047 xbsmr (27.03) ICPA2047 xbsmr (30.19) ICPA2047 xbsmr (25.45) ICPA2047 xbsmr (24.75) ICPA2043 xlcp (22.57) ICPA2043 xlcp (26.98) ICPA2043 xlcp (27.36) ICPA2043 xlcp (29.26) ICPA2043 xbsmr (24.97) ICPA2043 xbsmr (21.84) ICPA 2043 x BSMR (25.16) ICPA2043 xbsmr (22.91) ICPA2078 xlcp (27.94) ICPA2078 xlcp (25.09) ICPA2078 xlcp (28.57) ICPA2078 xlcp (31.31) ICPA2078 xbsmr (26.10) ICPA2078 xbsmr (26.85) ICPA2078 xbsmr (28.51) ICPA2078 xbsmr (24.85) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 43

70 Cross lines Fig. 7. Mean per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera Hub. in different cross lines of pigeonpea o m lt> o m o m CM CM th th aseiuep pod uaejs iuod joj

71 Srivastava et al. (1993) observed H. armigera pod damage from to per cent in the late maturing group. MLT-31 recorded lowest infestation and MLT-25 and MLT-35 were die most susceptible cultivars. In 1995 Ajayi et al observed greatest pod damage in Delta (40 per cent) and lowest in Niger (5 per cent) caused by lepidopteron pod borers. Sahoo and Senapati (2001) observed UPAS-120, C-ll and PUSA recorded 57,07, and per cent pod damage respectively. The cross lines showing higher resistance for H. armigera than checks and parental genotypes a) Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea The experimental findings on per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to H. armigera Hub., E. atomosa Wals. and M. obtusa Mall, in different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in Table 7 and graphically represented in fig. 8. It is clear from the data Table 7 that check Tj-BSMR 736 (28.87) and T4-BSMR 853 (26.96) recorded significantly higher per cent dry pod damage ofh. armigera over both check T3-ICPH 2671 (17.24) and TrBDN 708 (20.07). The parental genotypes T10-BSMR 846 (24.00) and Ti2- BSMR 175 (25.37) recorded significantly higher per cent dry pod damage over check T4-BSMR 853. However T6-ICP 9939, T7-ICP 12320, T8-ICP and Tie-ICPA 2078 recorded lower per cent dry pod damage over the check TrBSMR

72 Table 7. Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Per cent dry pod damage H. armigera E. atomosa M. obtusa Pod borer comi Tj-BSMR 736 (CH) 28.87(32.49) (22.79) 6.96 (15.23) (45.4S T2-BDN 708 (CH) (26.61) (18.51) 5.47 (13.47) (36.83 T3-ICPH2671(CH) 17.24(24.51) 9.80 (18.25) 0.61 (4.45) (31.72 T4-BSMR-853 (CH) (31.26) (23.32) 6.72 (14.99) (44.6? Tj-ICP (24.85) 7.20(15.53) 0.78 (5.01) (30.42 T6-ICP (21.43) 2.82 (9.56) (6.39) (24.74 TrICP (18*92) 3.36(10.20) (6.59) (22.83 T8-ICP (19.13) 5.56 (13.56) 0.99 (5.70) (24.5f T9-BSMR (26.10) (19.83) 6.36 (14.53) (37.64 T10-BSMR (29.32) 13.36(21.28) 2.15 (8.23) (38.9C Tji-BSMR (26.58) 8.06(16.44) 0.79 (4.88) (32.4S T12-BSMR (30.20) (20.86) 2.93 (9.85) (39.81 T13-ICPA (24.47) 6.51 (14.75) 1.01 (5.76) (29.7? T14-ICPA (27.03) 5.22 (13.20) 3.35 (10.38) (32.72 T15-ICPA (25.77) 6.66 (14.94) 2.72 (9.35) (32.21 T16-ICPA (22.15) 5.05 (12.35) 0.67 (4.54) (26.3C SE ± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 45

73 UH.armigera ae.atomosa UM.obtusa M Pod Borer Complex T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T il T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 Genotypes Fig. 8. Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea 09 o o m o rvj asetuep pod Ajp ;uao J0d

74 Genotypes like, T5-ICP 7193, T13-ICPA 2043 and T,r ICPA 2092 were at par with the check T3-ICPH 2671 and T9-BSMR 243, Tn-BSMR 174 and Th-ICPA 2047 were at par with check T2-BDN 708. earlier workers. The present findings are discussed with the findings of Katiyar et ah (1982) rqported that the main pod damage 8.4 per cent in UPAS-120 and ICPL-92 recorded highest 29.1 per cent pod damage. Sahoo and Patnaik (1993) observed in extra early group, ICPL 87 recorded per cent pod damage followed by the C-ll (17.20 per cent). Durairaj and Ganapathy in 1997 and Das in 1998 studied resistance of varieties to H. armigera on cultivated and wild relative of Cajanus. The study revealed that several germplasm accessions showed moderate resistance to pod borer H. armigera. The data given in Table 7 indicate that genotypes T6-ICP 9939 (2.82) and TrICP (3.36) recorded significantly lowest per cent dry pod damage due to E. atomosa over both the checks Tj-BSMR 736 (15.03) and T4-BSMR 853 (15.77). The check Tr BDN 708 (10.42) and T3- ICPH 2671 (9.80) also recorded lower per cent dry pod damage over both the check Tr BSMR 736 and T4-BSMR 853. Genotypes like TrBSMR 243, Tir BSMR 846 and T12-BSMR 175 recorded higher per cent dry pod damage over the both check T2-BDN 708 and T3-ICPH On the genotypes T5-ICP 7193, Tn-BSMR 174, T13-ICPA \ 2043 and T15-ICPA 2092 observed lower per cent dry pod damage by E. atomosa over die check Tj-BSMR 736 and genotypes Tg-ICP 12057, 46

75 Ti4-ICPA 2047 and Ti6-ICPA 2078 found to be significant resistant over check T2-BDN 708. Such types of observations were obtained by Patel and Patel in 1990 on the reaction of 13 varieties of pigeonpea to H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa. The cultivars GAUT , GAUT 82-99, GAUT were observed to be free of infestation by E. atomosa. hi 2002 Bhuwaneshwari and Balagurunathan observed K armigera as the major pest resulting in pod damage of 27 and 17.3 per cent during and , respectively. Hie tur plume modi, E. atomosa was most active from the second week of November to second week of February, highest in last week of December with pod damage of 8.23 to per cent observed by Bhoyar et al. (2004). Regarding per cent dry pod damage due to M. obtusa, the data revealed that genotypes T3-ICPH 2671 (0.61), T5-ICP 7193 (0.78), t8-icp (0.99), T -BSMR 174 (0.79), T13-ICPA 2043 (1.01) and T16-ICPA 2078 (0.67) recorded lower per cent dry pod damage over the check Ti-BSMR 736 (6.96) and T4-BSMR 853 (6.72). The parental genotypes T6-ICP 9939 (13J25) and TrICP (13.90) recorded significandy higher per cent dry pod damage over both the check Tj-BSMR 736 and T4-BSMR 853. However the check T2-BDN 708 (5.47) and T3-ICPH 2671 (0.61) recorded lower per cent dry pod damage over both the check TrBSMR 736 and T4-BSMR 853. Genotypes T10-BSMR 846, T12-BSMR 175, T14-ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 recorded more susceptible over'the check T3- icph

76 The present findings are discussed in light of findings of previous workers as: Goyal et al (1991) reported PPE 45-2, AL 57, Bhandboot and BP 1809 recorded low infestation than T and BDN 2. Lai and Sachan (1992) observed PDA 89-2E, PDA 88-2E, PDA 88-IE, and PDA 89-3E as highly promising against pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa). According to Srivastava et al (1993) the pod damage ranged from (MLT-6) to per cent (JA-3). The low infestation occurred in MLT-31 and MLT-25 (56.56 per cent) was the most susceptible to pod damage followed by MLT-35 (54.29). Overall result on per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex revealed that check TrBSMR 736 (50.86) and T4-BSMR 853 (49.46) recorded significantly high per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex over both the check T2-BDN 708 (35.97) and T3- ICPH 2671 (26.68). When mean values of check of pigeonpea for per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex were compared with parental genotypes T9-BSMR 243, T10-BSMR 846 and T12-BSMR 175 were observed to be more susceptible over the check T3-ICPH However T6-ICP 9939, T7-ICP 12320, T8-ICP and T16-ICPA 2078 recorded significant resistance over both the check TrBSMR 736 and T4-BSMR 853. Other genotypes recorded similar resistance like the check T3-ICPH The above results are comparable with the results of earlier research worker as: 48

77 Mali and Patil (1994) reported to be T-21 least damaged by pod borer complex. While Ritu Shrivastava and Sehgal in.2005 reported MPG 664, MI 2, MI 16, ICPL 151 and ICPL were the least susceptible to H. armigera, ICPH 8, MPG 537, ICPL 84052, ICPL and ICPL 151 were susceptinle to M. obtusa. On the basis of per cent pod damage and Pest Susceptibility Rating (PSR), entries AL 1498, AL 1502 and AL 1340 were found promising with mean pod damage of to per cent by Kooner and Cheema (2006). The parental genotypes were tolerance against pod borer damage over the check b) Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigenpea The experimental findings on per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to H. armigera Hub., E. atomosa Wals. andm obtusa Mall, in different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 8 and graphically represented in fig. 9. The data observed in Table 8 indicate that the cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (10.16), ICPA 2092 x ICP (15.21), ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243 (15.72), ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174 (14.37), ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193 (14.75), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (14.72) and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 (16.42) recorded significantly lower per cent dry pod damage of H. armigera. Whereas cross lines ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (25.32), ICPA 2043 x ICP (25.72), ICPA 2078 x ICP (27.25) and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 (24.16) recorded higher per cent pod damage over cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (10.16). On cross lines like ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 observed lower per cent pod damage over the cross 49

78 Table 8. Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea Per cent dry pod damage Cross lines H. armigera E. atomosa M. obtusa Pod borer comple: ICPA 2092 x ICP (18.55) 2.67 (9.33) 0.90 (5.35) (21.69) ICPA 2092 x ICP (26.78) 2.67 (9.39) 1.66 (7.24) (29.69) ICPA 2092 x ICP (22.93) 7.51 (15.69J 3.67 (10.94) (30.82) ICPA 2092 x ICP (28.30) (18.86) 3.45 (10.67) (37.14) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (23.35) 5.00 (12.86) 0.58 (4.01) (27.45) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (27.61) 5.97 (14.13) 2.67 (9.33) (33.28) ICPA2092 xbsmr (22.25) 9.35 (17.77) 3.45 (10.67) (31.38) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (25.48) 3.76 (11.08) 0.60 (4.37) (28.48) ICPA 2047 x ICP (25.25) 7.50 (15.87) 2.67 (9.27) (32,16) ICPA 2047 x ICP (25.13) 3.67 (10.91) 0.78 (5.08) (28.33) ICPA 2047 x ICP (27.80) (20.77) 5.59 (13.00) (39.20) ICPA 2047 x ICP (28.64) (19.14) 4.50 (12.18) (38.20) ICPA2047 xbsmr (27.03) 9.08 (17.47) 2.79 (9.59) (34.75) ICPA2047 xbsmr (30.19) (20.03) 4.08 (11.64) (39.90) ICPA 2047 xbsmr (25.80) 6.67 (14.86) 2.96 (8.24) (31.72) ICPA 2047 xbsmr (24.51) 3.46 (10.64) 0.70 (4.69) (27.51) ICPA 2043 x ICP (22.57) 4.78 (12.55) 0.65 (4.43) (26.66) ICPA 2043 x ICP (27.43) 8.67 (17.10) 3.51 (10.68) (35.39) ICPA 2043 x ICP (27.54) (19.03) 4.67 (12.33) (37.29) ICPA 2043 x ICP (30.46) 9.78 (18.20) 2.35 (8.78) (37.95) ICPA 2043 xfismr (25.90) 1.98 (8.08) 0.78 (5.01) (37.96) ICPA2043 xbsmr (22.54) 6.08 (14.19) 2.68 (9.40) (28.94) ICPA2043 xbsmr (29.95) 6.08 (14.12) 2.68 (9.29) (31.84) ICPA2043 xfismr (23.86) 1.98 (8.06) 0.78 (5.01) (25.92) ICPA 2078 x ICP (28.62) 4.78 (12.50) 2.38 (8.68) (33.24) ICPA 2078 x ICP (25.93) 3.77 (11.17) 0.58 (4.30) (28.71) ICPA 2078 x ICP ( (17.82) 2.05 (8.09) (32.82) ICPA 2078 x ICP (31.45) (21.78) 3.45 (10.67) (41.82) ICPA2078 xfismr (27.19) 7.00 (15.22) 2.00 (8.12) (33.12) ICPA2078 xbsmr (27.63) 2.56 (9.19) 1.05 (5.45) (30.08) ICPA 2078 x BSMR (29.33) 9.67 (18.07) 3.45 (10.59) (37.54) ICPA2078 xbsmr (26.11) 3.05 (10.04) 0.99 (5.70) (28.93) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 50

79 n H. armigera y E. atomosa u M. obtusa y Pod borer complex Cross lines Fig. 9. Per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea tn o m o m m cm oi asecuep pod Ajp juao jaj

80 line ICPA 2078 * ICP and cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2078 x ICP 243 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 recorded higher per cent pod damage over cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP The remaining cross lines showed resistance over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP The present findings are discussed with the findings of earlier workers: Hong et al. (1992) observed that H. armigera damage up to 70 per cent pods and percentage of damaged pod and seed of six genotypes ranged from 98 to 100 per cent for pod damage and 88 to 97 per cent for seed damage under unprotected condition. Bhuwaneshwari and Balagurunathan (2002) recorded H. armigera as the major pest resulting in pod damage of 27 and 17.3 per cent in untreated plots during and , respectively. Regarding per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to E. atomosa, the data revealed that the cross lines ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 (1.98), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 (1.98), ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (2.67), ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939 (2.67), ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175 (3.76), ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939 (3.67), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 (3.46), ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 (3.77), ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 (2.56) and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 (3.05) recorded lower per cent dry pod damage. Whereas the cross lines ICPA 2047 x ICP (12.67), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (11.78) and ICPA 2078 x ICP (13.78) showed higher per cent dry pod damage. 51

81 The cross lines ICPA 2092 * ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 * ICP 7193, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 * BSMR 846, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 243 recorded lower pod damage over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP However ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2043 x ICP12057, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 recorded higher per cent pod damage over the cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243. Remaining cross lines recorded less per cent dry pod damage over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP The present findings are discussed in light of findings of previous workers as: Cultivars C-ll, ICPL-87119, WRG-47 and WRG-53 showed more damage due to pests as compared to other cultivars observed by Surana et al. in In case of per cent dry pod damage by M. obtusa the data in Table 8 indicate that all entries recorded lower per cent pod damage except cross lines ICPA 2047 x ICP (5.59), ICPA 2047 x ICP (4.50), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (4.08) and ICPA 2043 x ICP (4.67) recorded higher per cent dry pod damage. Whereas ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243 (0.58), ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175 (0.60), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 (0.70), ICPA 2043 xlcp 7193 (0.65), ICPA 2043 x ICP (0.78) and ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 (0.58) recorded lower per cent pod damage over the cross line ICPA 2047 x ICP The cross lines like ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 observed to be more susceptible over cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP However ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243, 52

82 ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2078 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 243 recorded higher per cent dry pod damage over cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP The remaining cross lines showed significant resistance over the cross line ICPA 2047 x ICP Such types of observations were obtained by Talekar (1988) studied damage caused by Melanogromyza obtusa to pigeonpea pod in Taiwan in and found that when 375 pods were observed, 52.8 per cent were damaged and 43.3 per cent of seeds infested. In 1993 Yadav and Chaudhary reported that H. armigera damaged 13.6 and 13.7 per cent pod and 5.3 per cent grains during 1984 and 1985 respectively. However, M. obtusa caused damage to pods and grains to the e of 10.1 and 3.5 per cent and 9.4 and 3.1 per cent Srivastava and Sehgal in 2005 found that ICPH-8, MPG 537, ICPL-84052, ICPL and ICPL-151 were least susceptible to M. obtusa. ICPL-151 gave the highest yield. Overall results on per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex revealed that cross lines ICPA 2047 x ICP (40.16), ICPA 2047 x ICP (38.28), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (41.18), ICPA 2078 x ICP (44.48) and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 (37.28) recorded higher per cent dry pod damage and ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (13.74) recorded lower pod damage due to pod borer complex over all cross lines. The cross lines ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 recorded lower per cent dry pod damage over the cross line ICPA 2047 x ICP ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2078 x BSMR 53

83 846 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 observed to be more susceptible over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP (44.48). The remaining cross lines showed significant resistance over the cross line ICPA 2078 * ICP The above results are comparable with the results of earlier research worker as: Sidde Gowda et al. (2002) recorded pod damage in IPM fields 7.8 per cent was less than the non-ipm fields (16.44). Bhuwaneshwari and Balagurunathan (2002) recorded H. armigera as the major pest resulting in pod damage of 27 and 17.3 per cent in untreated plots during and , respectively. The cross lines showed tolerance to pod borer complex as compared with check and parental genotypes a) Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea The experimental findings on per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in Table 9 and graphically represented in fig. 10. It is clear from the data in Table 9 that the check T2-BDN 708 (23.47), T3-ICPH 2671 (22.01) and T4-BSMR 853 (30.62) recorded lowest per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex over the check Ti-BSMR 853 (34.37). Genotypes T10-BSMR 846 (34.47) and Ti2-BSMR 175 (32.37) recorded significantly high per cent grain damage over check T2- BDN 708. Whereas TrICP 12320, T8-ICP 12057, T -BSMR 174, T14- ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 recorded higher per cent grain damage over the check T3-ICPH When mean values of given genotypes of pigeonpea for per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex were compared with checks, T6-ICP 9939, T9-BSMR 243 and T13-ICPA 2043 were found to 54

84 Table 9. Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Per cent grain damage T,-BSMR736 (CH) (35.88) T2-BDN708(CH) (28.97) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) (27.96) T4-BSMR-853 (CH) (33.59) T5-ICP (28.41) Tg-ICP (25.46) T7-ICP (29.48) T8-ICP (29.72) T9-BSMR (27.13) T10-BSMR (35.94) Tn-BSMR (29.60) T12-BSMR (34.66) T13-ICPA (26.31) T14-ICPA (30.14) T15-ICPA (31.67) Tie-ICPA (28.90) SE ± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 55

85 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 18 T9 T10 Til T12 T13 T14 T15 Tl* Genotypes Fig. 10. Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different genotypes of pigeonpea aseoiep ujej iuao ja<j

86 Grain damage by Helicoverpa armigera Grain damage by Exelastis atomosa Grain damage by Melanagromyza ohtusa Plate 6. Nature of grain damage by pod borer complex on pigeonpea

87 be significantly resistant over check TpBSMR 736. However T5-ICP 7193 and Tie-ICPA 2078 were at par with the check T2-BDN 708. The present findings are discussed with the findings of earlier workers as: Kabaria et al. (1988) observed mean damage of 4.5 and 9.7 per cent due to H. armigera and 9.8 and 3.9 per cent due to M. obtusa. In 1992,Hong et al. observed that percentage of damaged pod and seed of six genotypes ranging from 98 to 100 per cent for pod damage and 88 to 97 per cent for seed damage under unprotected condition. Raut et al. (1993) recorded least infestation of 11.4 per cent in H The yield loss was least in CORG 13 (8.88 per cent) and H (9.87 per cent). Yield per plant was greatest in BDN 33 (20.59 per cent) followed by MTH 16 (19.69 g) b) Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea The result on per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 10 and graphically represented in fig. 11. The data given in Table 10 indicate that ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (16.35), ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (19.37) and ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 (17.96) recorded lowest per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex over the cross line ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 (36.00). Cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 recorded significantly high per cent grain damage over the cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (16.35). 56

88 Table 10. Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross line of pigeonpea Cross lines Per cent grain damage ICPA2092 xlcp (23.83) ICPA 2092 xlcp (33.10) ICPA2092 xlcp (29.65) ICPA 2092 xlcp (31.82) ICPA 2092 xfismr (33.52) ICPA 2092 xbsmr (35.69) ICPA2092 xfismr (27.25) ICPA2092 xfismr (33.12) ICPA2047 xlcp (29.23) ICPA2047 xlcp (27.15) ICPA2047 xlcp (34.05) ICPA2047 xlcp (29.65) ICPA2047 xbsmr (29.95) ICPA2047 xfismr (32.17) ICPA2047 xbsmr (30.88) ICPA2047 xbsmr (28.40) ICPA2043 xlcp (27.95) ICPA2043 xlcp (33.95) ICPA2043 xlcp (29.22) ICPA2043 xlcp (32.44) ICPA2043 xbsmr (31.97) ICPA2043 xbsmr (26.10) ICPA2043 xfismr (34.40) ICPA2043 xbsmr (29.62) ICPA2078 xlcp (30.02) ICPA2078 xlcp (25.01) ICPA 2078 x ICP (34.05) ICPA2078 xlcp (30.02) ICPA2078 xfismr (30.22) ICPA2078 xbsmr (34.44) ICPA2078 xbsmr (30.60) ICPA2078 xbsmr (27.60) SE± CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 57

89 A ^ <w o o m vie S\% W +n tr <P, OS ^S ' * W ' O* '+ / <>. ^ <v v*+x ^ <Q, << V\ vvv V* -X %\V* \\V wy? <> -9, % V ^ <4, V«<0, % O'} ^sv> %S>> 4vv* *>x> <f.\ % s>.&% % y V \ f. <5x \v ^ ^ \ %' ^ <Kx V' V <K <q, * V; <V ^ ^ * / *%- +. v vv^ v v ^ ^.v> * V ^ CVJt* *0, Cross lines Fig. 11. Mean per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex in different cross lines of pigeonpea aftetuep mej3 juao jaj

90 When mean values of cross lines ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 and ICPA 2092 * BSMR 846 were compared with cross lines ICPA 2092 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175, ICPA 2078 x ICP 7193, ICPA 2078 x ICP and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 243 observed to be significantly resistant over both cross lines. While the cross lines, ICPA 2092 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2043 x ICP and ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 observed to be susceptible for grain damage due to pod borer complex over the cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP The remaining cross lines recorded to be resistant over the cross line ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174. Such types of observations were recorded by Talekar(1988) in Taiwan as 52.8 per cent pods were damaged and 43.3 per cent of seeds infested by M. obtusa. Gosalwad et al. (1992) observed per cent avoidable crop losses in number of healthy pod per plant, 1000 grains weight and grain yield to be 52.24, and per cent respectively Evaluation of different genotypes for specific characters in relation to pod damage by pod borer complex in pigeonpea The results of evaluation study of different genotypes are presented in Table 11. The data given in Table 11 indicate that mean days to flowering among test entries ranged from 105 to 130 days. The medium maturing genotypes, TrBSMR 736 (50.86), T4-BSMR 853 (49.46), Ts- ICP 7193, Tg-ICP 12057, T9-BSMR 243, T10-BSMR 846, T12-BSMR 175 (41.05), T14-ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 having days to flowering in range of 115 to 125 days were more affected by pod borer complex which recorded more than 40 per cent pod damage. The late maturing genotypes T2-BDN 708, T6-ICP 9939 and T7-ICP having days to flowering 125 to 130 days were least 58

91 Table 11. Evaluation of different genotypes for specific characters in relation to pod damage by pod borer complex in pigeonpea Genotypes Ti -BSMR 736 (CH) T2-BDN708 (CH) T3-ICPH2671 (CH) T4-BSMR 853 (CH) Ts-ICP 7193 Tg-ICP 9939 T7-ICP Tg-ICP T9-BSMR 243 T10-BSMR 846 Tn -BSMR 174 T12-BSMR 175 TU-ICPA2043 T14-ICPA2047 Xu -ICPA 2092 Ti6-ICPA2078 Days to Flower HO- 115 Pod colour Green, black strips Faint green Blackis h green Green, black strips Green, black strips Green, black strips Green, black strips Green, black strips Green, black strips Blackis hgreen Green, black strips Pods/ plant Grain Colour Grain size Maturity time (Days) No. of Locules / pod Orange Medium Dark orange Dark orange Cream y white Faint orange Faint orange Small Small Medium Small Medium Black Medium Orange Small Orange Large Green Faint green Green, black strips Green, black strips Faint green Blackis h brown Cream y white Cream y white Medium Large Large Orange Medium Cream y Cream y Medium Small Orange Large Figures in parentheses are angular transformed values. 59

92 susceptible to pod borer which recorded less than 20 per cent pod damage. Early maturing genotypes having days to flowering 105 to 115 days were recorded moderate resistance against pod borer complex i.e., T3-ICPH 2671 (27.68), Ti,-BSMR 174 (28.89), T13-ICPA 2043 (24.69) and T16-ICPA 2078 (20.30). Such type of observations were reported by Misra (1993) that early flowering genotypes ICPL and ICPL recorded highest pod damage of and percent over ICPL 314, ICPL 329 (late maturing) and BDN-1 (medium maturing) genotypes. The data for pod colour indicate that the genotypes T2- BDN 708, T13-ICPA 2043 and T,6-ICPA 2078 recorded faint green pod colour with pod damage of to per cent. Genotypes T2- ICPH 2671 and T10-BSMR 174 showed blackish green pod colour with pod damage of and The remaining genotypes showed pod colour of green with black strips which recorded pod damage of to Pod colour showed no correlation with per cent pod damage by pod borer complex. The results observed for pods per plant showed that there were greater than 160 pods per plant in genotypes TrBSMR 736, T2- BDN 708, T3-ICPH 2671, T4-BSMR 853, T6-ICP 9939, T9-BSMR 243, T10-BSMR 846, T12-BSMR 175, Ti3-ICPA 2043, TH-ICPA 2092 and T15-ICPA 2092 which recorded pod damage of to per cent Genotypes TS-ICP 7193, T7-ICP 12320, T8-ICP 12057, T -BSMR 174 and Tie-ICPA 2078 showed less than 160 pods per plants and which recorded pod damage of to per cent The per cent pod damage by pod borer complex showed positive correlation with pods per plants. The present findings were observed earlier by Anitha Kumari in 2006 reported that there were > 40 pods per plant in ICP , ICPL 98001, ICPL 98008, ICPL and ICPL which recorded pod damage of to per cent ICPL and ICPL 60

93 87091 having < 20 pods per plants recorded and per cent pod damage. Regarding grain colour of different genotypes, the data showed that genotypes TpBSMR 736, TrBDN 708, T3-ICPH 2671, T8- ICP 12057, T9-BSMR 243, T13-ICPA 2043 and T16-ICPA 2078 had grain colour of orange to dark orange, which recorded pod damage of to per cent However T4-BSMR 853, Tu-BSMR 174, Tj2- BSMR 175, T14-ICPA 2047 and T15-ICPA 2092 observed grain colour of creamy to creamy white, recorded pod damage of28.45 to per cent. Genotypes with faint green colour i.e., T5-ICP 7193 and T6-ICP 9939 showed less per cent pod damage of to per cent respectively. While Tjq-BSMR 846 with blackish brown grain colour also showed significant high per cent pod damage of per cent. The genotype TrICP with black grain colour recorded the lowest pod damage of per cent. However, it is revealed that the grain colour showed no specific correlation with per cent pod damage of pod bora* complex. When grain size of different genotypes compared with per cent pod damage, it is found that the genotypes TrBSMR 736, T4- BSMR 853, T6-ICP 9939, T7-ICP12320, T10-BSMR 243, T13-ICPA 2043 and Ti4-ICPA 2047 with medium sized grains, recorded high per cent pod infestation of to per cent The genotypes with small sized grains that are T2-BDN 708, T3-ICPH 2671, T5-ICP7193, T8-ICP12057 and T15-ICPA 2092 recorded pod infestation of to per cent. While genotypes with large grain size i.e. T9-BSMR 243, Tn-BSMR 174 and Tjg-ICPA 2078 recorded pod infestation of20.30 to per cent. The results reported that medium grain sized genotypes recorded high per cent pod infestation. 61

94 Regarding maturity time, data in Table 11 revealed that the mean days to maturity among the tested entries ranged from 155 to 180 days. The late maturing ( days) genotypes T4-BSMR 853, Ts-ICP 7193, T6-ICP 9939, Tr-ICP and TS-ICP recorded high pod infestation of to per cent. In case of early maturing ( days) genotypes T3- ICPH 2671 and Tio-BSMR 846 recorded per cent pod infestation of to per cent. However the medium maturing ( days) genotypes TrBSMR 736, T2-BDN 708, T9-BSMR 243, T -BSMR 174, T12-BSMR 175, TirICPA 2043, T14-ICPA 2047, T1S-ICPA 2092 and Tie-ICPA 2078 recorded high per cent pod infestation of to percent The late and medium maturing genotypes were observed to be susceptible to pod borer complex. The present results are comparable with the results of earlier research worker as: In 1993, Sahoo and Patnaik reported that extra early maturing cultivars had the highest pod damage due to H. armigera (ICPL-87, 29.6 per cent damage) followed by the early and late maturing cultivars (C-ll was having 17.2 per cent pod damage due to borer). Rao et al. (2003) observed that pod damage was lowest in the short duration cultivars and highest in long duration cultivars. The correlation study of number of locules per pod with per cent pod damage showed that genotype T2-BDN 708, T4-BSMR 853, T9-BSMR 243, T -BSMR 174 and T14-ICPA 2047 with less number of locules (2-4) recorded per cent pod damage of28.89 to However the genotypes T6-ICP 9939, TrICP 12320, T8-ICP 12057, T!3- ICPA 2043, Tjs-ICPA 2092 and T16-ICPA 2078 with 3-6 number locules per pod, recorded less pod damage of to per cent. 62

95 While genotypes with medium number of locules par pod (3-4) recorded to pa- cent pod damage i.e. Ti-BSMR 736, T3-ICPH 2671, T5-ICP 7193, Tjq-BSMR 846 and T12-BSMR175. The study revealed that the genotypes with less and medium number of locules per pod showed susceptibility against pod borer complex a) Grain yield (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea The experimental findings on grain yield of different genotypes of pigeonpea are presented in Table 12 and graphically represented in fig. 12. The overall results on grain yield (per plot) of pigeonpea revealed that genotypes TrICP (0.078), T8-ICP (0.175) and Tn-BSMR 174 recorded significantly low yield over the check T2- BDN 708 (0.790) and T3-ICPH 2671 (0.618). Genotypes such as T9-BSMR 243, T13-ICPA 2043, T14- ICPA 2043 and T16-ICPA 2078 recorded significantly higher yield over both the check TrBSMR 736 (0.409) and T4-BSMR 853 (0.394) When grain yield (kg) values of checks of pigeonpea were compared with different genotypes TS-ICP 7193, T6-9939, Tj2-BSMR 175 and T15-ICPA 2092 found to be inferior over both the check Tr BDN 708 and T3-ICPH The present results are comparable with the results of earlier research worker as: Awasthi and Bhatnager (1983) reported that averages of per cent of grains were damaged by pod borers. In 2002, Srivastava and Mohapatra reported the extent of pod damage by LPBs was 1.0 to 6.3 per cent ICP-8863 suffered the highest pod damage, while the lowest in KM-124 and KM-125. Kooner and Cheema (2006) found AL 1498, AL 1502 and AL 1340 promising with mean pod damage of to per cent. 63

96 Table 12. Grain yield (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea Treatments Grain yield kg/plot Grain yield kg/ha Ti-BSMR 736 (CH) T2-BDN 708 (CH) T3-ICPH 2671 (CH) T4-BSMR-853 (CH) T5-ICP T6-ICP TrICP Tg-ICP T9-BSMR T10-BSMR Tn-BSMR T12-BSMR T13-ICPA T14-ICPA T1S-ICPA T16-ICPA SE± CD at 5%

97 o T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 18 T9 T10 T il T12 TIB T14 T15 T16 Genotypes Fig. 12. Grain yield pigeonpea (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea 9 0 8'0 jo d/3>) pjaja ujejg

98 4.7. b) Grain yield (kg) of different cross lines of pigeonpea The results of grain yield of different cross lines of pigeonpea are presented in Table 13 and graphically represented in fig. 13. The data presented in Table 14 indicates that the cross lines ICPA 2092 * ICP 7193 (0.758), ICPA 2092 * ICP (0.739), ICPA 2092 x ICP (0.713), ICPA 2092 x BSMR 175 (0.785), ICPA 2047 x ICP 7193 (0.688), ICPA 2047 x ICP 9939 (0.709), ICPA 2047 x ICP (0.848), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 846 (0.708), ICPA 2047 x BSMR 175 (0.709), ICPA 2078 x BSMR 174 (0.696) and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 175 (0.720) recorded higher grain yield. Cross lines ICPA 2047 x BSMR 243 (0.323), ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 (0.279) and ICPA 2078 x ICP (0.314) recorded lower yield over the cross line ICPA 2047 x ICP (0.848). Other cross lines like ICPA 2092 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2092 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2047 x BSMR 174, ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939, ICPA 2043 x ICP 12320, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 175 and ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 found to be inferior over the cross line ICPA 2047 x ICP However ICPA 2092 x BSMR 846, ICPA 2047 x ICP 12057, ICPA 2043 x ICP 7193 and ICPA 2078 x ICP found to be superior over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP (0.314). Remaining cross lines recorded significant resistant over the cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP Such types of observations were obtained by earlier research workers as: Raut et al showed that yield per plant was greatest in BDN 33 followed by MTH 6. Thakur et al. (1989) reported that 43.7 per cent of pods and per cent of grains were damaged by H. armigera in untreated field. The corresponding percentages for M. obtusa were, and per cent. 65

99 Table 13. Grain yield (kg) of different cross lines of pigeonpea Cross lines Grain yield kg/plot Grain yield kg/ha ICPA 2092 x ICP ICPA 2092 x ICP ICPA2092 xlcp ICPA2092 xlcp ICPA2092 xbsmr ICPA 2092 xbsmr ICPA 2092 x BSMR ICPA 2092 x BSMR ICPA2047 xlcp ICPA2047 xlcp ICPA 2047 x ICP ICPA2047 xlcp ICPA2047 xbsmr ICPA2047 xbsmr ICPA2047 xbsmr ICPA2047 xbsmr ICPA2043 xlcp ICPA2043 xlcp ICPA2043 xlcp ICPA 2043 x ICP ICPA2043 xbsmr ICPA2043 xbsmr ICPA2043 xbsmr ICPA2043 xbsmr ICPA2078 xlcp ICPA2078 xlcp ICPA2078 xlcp ICPA2078 xlcp ICPA2078 xbsmr ICPA2078 xbsmr ICPA2078 xbsmr ICPA2078 xbsmr SE± CD at 5%

100 Mil va & <>. '&+ a, ^fv> ^ V 'fc. <, 4i J<5> ^ ' C> <0/ "<fe^ 4V«& +n *V vv* <P b^_ ^ Vo/<o/^ & \ <0^ 0/ *.vv* <\ V0' 1\\> << ft % % \ % M M. / / / / / ^ <jj A & A 9 ^ O.1' o,"0 fl-v <5-V AN < V - V '.V _xy j i r js r _k^,o ',o ;..C? ojy os?^ ojy ^ v<5 ^ J? + > X- X- & <S> <P +' +- +N- Av <$> $. ^ JS / x-' x- x^ x^ Cross lines Fig. 13. Grain yield pigeonpea (kg) of different genotypes of pigeonpea ;o d/3> p e(a mejg

101 Summary and Conclusions

102 CHAPTER - V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Investigations were carried out at Department of Agricultural Botany, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani to evaluate interspecific derivatives of pigeonpea against pod borer complex in kharifl010. During the course of study, 16 genotypes and 32 cross lines were studied for pod borer complex of pigeonpea under unprotected condition. The findings of the present investigation are summarized here under. Mean values of number of eggs of H. armigera on different genotypes and cross lines of pigeonpea were compared. Genotype TrBSMR 736 (CH) recorded highest (2.800) number of eggs, whereas genotype T]2-BSMR 175 recorded lowest (0.675) number of eggs over all genotypes. Among the cross lines, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 846 (2.300) showed highest number of eggs, while ICPA 2078 xlcp 7193 (0.535) recorded lowest number of eggs of H. armigera. Mean larval infestation of H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa were compared. Genotypes Tg-ICP was found to be resistant for H. armigera recorded lowest (0.985) larval population. However genotype T4-BSMR 853 (CH) recorded resistance for E. atomosa. For larval population of M. obtusa, genotype T6-ICP 9939 recorded lowest (0.650) larval population. Genotype T4-ICPA 2047 was observed to be susceptible for H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa, respectively and recorded maximum number of larvae among all genotypes. Whereas cross line ICPA 2043 x ICP 9939 was found to be resistant for H. armigera and recorded lowest (0.405) larval population. Cross line ICPA 2043 x BSMR 174 recorded lowest (0.360) larval 67

103 population of E. atomosa. For M. obtusa cross line ICPA 2078 x BSMR 846 recorded lowest (0.265) larval population. Per cent green pod damage due to H. armigera recorded maximum (30.12) on genotype Tj-BSMR 736 (CH), whereas minimum (10.33) pod damage was observed on genotype T8-ICP In cross lines, ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 recorded low (9.30) per cent green pod damage, while ICPA 2078 x ICP observed high (27.02) per cent green pod damage. When mean values of per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa were compared genotype Tg-ICP for H. armigera, X6-ICP 9939 for E. atomosa and Xi6- ICPA 2078 observed to be superior among all genotypes. However genotype XrBSMR 736 (CH), X4-BSMR 853 (CH) and XrICP found to be inferior with high per cent pod damage by H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa, respectively, among all the given genotypes tested. Xhe per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex was maximum (50.86) in genotype XrBSMR 736 (CH), whereas minimum (15.58) in genotype X7-ICP among all genotypes. In cross lines, when mean values of per cent dry pod damage at harvest due to H. armigera, E. atomosa and M. obtusa were compared. Cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 for H. armigera, ICPA 2043 x BSMR 243 for E. atomosa and ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 for M. obtusa recorded significant resistance over all cross lines. Whereas cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP for both H. armigera and E. atomosa and ICPA 2047 x ICP for M. obtusa observed to be susceptible among all cross lines. Per cent dry pod damage due to pod borer complex was minimum (13.74) observed in cross line ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193, whereas maximum (44.48) in cross line ICPA 2078 x ICP among all the given cross line of pigeonpea. 68

104 When mean values of per cent grain damage due to pod borer complex were compared, genotypes Tg-ICP 9939, T9-BSMR 243 and T13-ICPA 2043 observed to be superior (lower per cent damage) among all the genotypes, whereas T10-BSMR 846 found to be inferior and recorded highest (34.47) per cent grain damage. Among the cross lines, ICPA 2092 * ICP 7193 recorded lowest (16.35) per cent grain damage. Whereas ICPA 2078 * BSMR 174 recorded (36.00) per cent grain damage over the entire cross line. The performance of genotypes for specific characters (days to flower, pod colour, pods per plant, grain size, maturity time and number of locules per pod) in relation to per cent pod damage by pod borer complex were studied, where mean days to flowering among test entries ranged from 105 to 130 days. The medium flowering genotypes (115 to 125 days to flowering) recorded mom than 40 per cent pod damage, whereas late flowering genotypes (125 to 130 days) were least susceptible to pod borer and recorded less than 20 per cent pod damage. Early flowering genotypes (105 to 115 days) recorded moderate resistance against pod borer complex. Pod colour showed no correlation with per cent pod damage by pod borer complex. The genotypes with greater than 160 pods per plant recorded pod damage of to per cent. Genotypes showing less than 160 pods per plants recorded pod damage of to per cent The per cent pod damage by pod borer complex showed positive correlation with pods per plants. Regarding grain colour of different genotypes, it is reported that the grain colour showed no any specific correlation with per cent pod damage of pod borer complex. When grain size of different genotypes was compared with per cent pod damage, it is found that, the genotypes with medium sized 69

105 grains recorded high (15.58 to per cent) per cent pod infestation than small and large grain sized genotypes of pigeonpea. Regarding maturity time, mean days to maturity among the tested entries ranged from 155 to 180 days. The late maturing ( days) genotypes recorded high pod infestation of to per cent than early maturing ( days) genotypes (27.68 to per cent). However medium maturing ( days) genotypes recorded high per cent pod infestation of24.69 to per cent The correlation study of number locules per pod with per cent pod damage reported that the genotypes with less number of locules (2-4) recorded per cent pod damage of to However the genotypes with 3-6 number locules per pod, recorded less pod damage of to per cent and genotypes with medium number of locules per pod (3-4) recorded to per cent pod damage. When yield performance of given genotypes was compared, it is found that genotype TI6-ICPA 2078 (0.874) and T2-BDN 708 (CH) (0.790 kg) recorded highest yield, whereas genotype T7-ICP recorded lowest (0.078 kg) yield among all genotypes. In cross lines ICPA 2047 * ICP (0.848 kg) and ICPA 2092 x ICP 7193 (0.758 kg) recorded highest yield, while ICPA 2078 x ICP 9939 recorded lowest (0,279) yield among all the cross lines of pigeonpea. 70

106 CONCLUSION: On the basis of results obtained from the field experiment conducted during kharif 2010, at Parbhani, it is concluded that, tur pod borer (H. armigera) is the key pest, alone causing to per cent pod damage. Whereas E. atomosa infested 2.82 to per cent pods and M. obtusa caused 0.61 to per cent pod damage. The per cent pod infestation due to pod borer complex ranged from per cent and per cent grain infestation of per cent under unprotected condition. 71

107 Literature Cited

108 LITERATURE CITED Ajayi, O.; Mi. Ezueh, R. Tabo, J.E. Asiegbu and Laxman Singh. 1995: Observations on insect damage to pigeonpea in Nigeria. Interl. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2: Anitha Kumari, D; D. J. Reddy and H.C. Sharma. 2006: Effect on grain yield in pigeonpea genotypes with different levels of i resistance to the pod borer, H armigera. Indian J. of Plant Prot. 34(2): Anonymous. 1974: Constrast of pest and diseases of tor. Annual Report, International Crop Research Institute of Semi Arid Tropics; : Anonymous. 1992: Pigeonpea variety ICPL-332. ICRISAT plant material description no. 35, ICRISAT A.P., India. Anonymous. 1997: Agriculture diary published by Dr. P.D.K.V. Akola, Maharashtra, pp Anonymous. 2011a: Area covered under puleses in India. Pulses monthly report Dec. 2011, cited on website com/links/pigeonpea.html. Anonymous. 2011b: Pulses Production Report, cited on website www. agropedia.com/link/pigeonpea.html. Anonymous 2011c: Area and Production of pigeonpea. First Kharif Report cited on website redgram.html. Arati Prashad; Nilofer Syed, Sujiota Purohit and Manish Jain. 2006: Study on incidence of key pest Helicoverpa in Udaipur District of South Rajasthan. Pestology. 30(8):

109 Awasthi, J.K. and Bhatnager A. 1983: A note on damage caused by pod borer complex in pigeonpea. Bulletin of Ento. 24(1): Balikai, R.A. and Yelshetty S. 2008: Insect pest scenario of pigeonpea innorthen Karnataka. Legumes Res. 31(2): Bhatnager, V.S.; S.S. Lateef, S. Sithanantham, C.S. Pawar and W. Reed. 1983: Research on Helicoverpa at ICRISAT. In Proceeding of the International Workshop on Helicoverpa Management, International Crop Research Institute of Semi Arid Tropics, Hydrabad, India. Pp Bhosale, DJ. and R.N. Nawale. 1983: Relative susceptibility of pigeonpea germplasm to gram pod borers. J.M.A. U. 8: SC SI. Bhoyar, A.S.; P.M. Siddhabhatti, R.M. Wadaskar and Mi. Khan. 2004: Studies on seasonal incidence and biointensive management of pigeonpea pod borer complex. Pestology. 28(9): Bhuwaneshwari, K. and R. Balangunmathan. 2002: Pod borer complex of pigeonpea in Tamil Nadu. Insect Environment. 8(4): Bilapate, G.G.; RJB. Mokat, R.C. Lavekar, A.B. Misal. 1991: Growth and development of H. armigera Hub. on different host plants. J.MA.U. 16(2): Chaudhary, J.P.; L.S. Yadav and F.S. Poonia. 1980: An integrated approach for control of pod borer on pigeonpea. Legume Res. 3(2): Dahiya, S.S.; Y.S. Chauhan, C. Johnsen and T.G. Shanower. 1999: Adjusting pigeonpea sowing time to manage pod borer II

110 infestation. Interl Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 6: II Ik/ * Das, S.B. 1998: Response of pigeonpea genotype against pest complex. Insect Enviomment. 4: Davies, J.C. and S.S. Lateef. 1977: Pulse entomology, Annual Report ( ). Part A. Pigeonpea entomology, ICRISAT, Hyderabad (A.P.), India. Devi, N.S.; O.H. Singh, P. Devijani and T.K. Singh. 2002: Incidence of H. armigera Hub. on pigeonpea. Annals of Plant Prot. Sci. 10: Durairaj, C and N. Ganpathy. 1997: Evaluation of pigeonpea entries of late maturity group for tolerance to pod borer {H. armigera and Maruca testulalis) and pod fly (M. obtusa). Indian J. Agril. Sci. 67(8): Ekshinge, B.S.; D.N. Arthamwar, V3. Shelke and M.Y. Deshpande: 1996: Performance of pigeonpea varieties against the pod borer complex, J.M.A. U. 21(2): Gangwar, L.K.; G.C. Bajpai, S-A. Kerkhi and SJC. Sachan. 2009: Pod borer susceptibility reaction in interspecific hybrids of pigeonpea. Indian J. Gentics and Plant Breeding. 69: Gosalwad, S.S.; Suryawanshi, D.S. and P.R. Zanwar. 1992: Crop losses optimum spray schedule for control of pod borer in pigeonpea./. M.A.U. 17(1): Gouse Mohammad and A. Subba Rao. 1998: Influence of intercrops on incidence of H. armigera Hub. in postrainy season pigeonpea. Interl. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 5: iii

111 Goyal, S.N.; B.S. Patel and C.B. Patel. 1991: Testing of some pigeonpea cultivars for pest reaction in Bharuch, Gujarat, India. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 14: Hong, NX; Nil. Nam, N.T. Yen and LX Tuong. 1992: First survey of pigeonpea insect pests in Vietnam. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 15: Jaagrati Jain. 2006: Preliminary screening of pigeonpea genotypes for multiple disease and insect resistance. Interl. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 13: Kabaria, B.; S.N. Goyal and A. H. Shah. 1988: Surveillence of insect pest damage to pigeonpea at poding stage. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 8: Kabaria, B.B.; S.N. Goyal, V.T. Jose and A.H. Shah. 1990: Effect of sowing time and varieties on major insect pests and grain yield of pigeonpea in Gujarat Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 11: Kashyap, N.P.; P.K. Mehta and S.S. Dhindsa. 1990: Insect pests associated with pigeonpea at Palampur, H.P., Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 12: Katiyar, Ri*. 1981: Yield losses caused by H. armigera Hub. in pigeonpea. Interl, Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2: Khokhar, K.S. and Zile Singh. 1984: Insects pests associated with pigeonpea at Hissar, India. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 1: Kooner, B and Harpeet Kaur Cheema. 2006: Evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes to pod borer complex. Indian J. Crop Sci. 1(1-2): lv

112 Kooner, B.S.; H. Singh and K.B. Singh. 1972: Relative susceptibility of germplasm of pigeonpea against tur pod fly (M obtusa Mall.) under field condition. Plant Prot. Bulletin. 23(1,2): Lai, S.S. and J.N. Sachan. 1992: Controlling pod fly, M. obtusa in late pigeonpea through host-plant resistance. Directorate of pulses Research, Kanpur (UJ*.), India. Interl Pigeonpea Newsletter. 15: Lai, S.S. and Y.S. Rathore. 1999: Studies on host plant resistance in pigeonpea against H. armigera Hub. Indian J. Pulses Res. 12: Lai, S.S.; J.N. Sachan and S. Chandra. 1985: Cultural and varietal tools for integrated pest management, for increasing pulse production. Plant Prot. Bulletin. 37(1): Lai, S.S.; Yadav, C.P. and Ahmed, R. 1997: Insect pests of short duration pigeonpea, A Review Plant Prot. Bulletin, Faridabad. 49(1-4): Lateefj S.S. and M.P. Pimbert. 1990: The search for host plant resistance of H. armigera in chickpea and pigeonpea at ICRISAT, pages In proceedings of the consultative Group meeting on the host selection behaviour of H. armigera, 5-7 March Patancheru, A.P., India: ICRISAT. Mali, M.S.. and S.P. Patil. 1994: Field screening of pigeonpea varieties against pod borers. Indian J. Ento. 56(2): Minja, E.M.; T.G, Shanower, J.M. Songa, J.M. Ongaro, P. Mviha, FA. Myaka and H. Okurut-Akol. 1996: Pigeonpea seed damage from insect pests of farmers fields in Kenya,

113 Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda. Interl. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 3: Misra, H.P. 1993: Screening of pigeonpea against pod fly, M. obtusa Mall, in Central Orissa, India. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 17: Nanda, UX; A. Sasmal and S.K. Mohanty. 1996: Varietal reaction of pigeonpea to pod borer H. armigera Hub. and mobilities of resistance. Current Agri. Res. 9: Naresh, J.S. and Singh J. 1984: Population dynamics and damage of pests in flowering pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan Mills.). Indian J. Ento. 46(4): Patel, M.G.; J.R. Patel and P.K. Borad. 1994: Field screening of genotypes against borer and fly. Gujarat Agril. Univ. Res. J. 20(1): Patel, P.S. and J.R. Patel. 1991: Screening of pigeonpea germplasm to pod borer and pod fly. Legume Res. 13(2): Prajapati, B.G.; DA. Dodia, S. Acharya and G.M. Patel. 2010: Pest succession studies in pigeonpea. Centre for Research on Seed Spices, S.D. Agril. University, Junagadh (Dist. Mehsana). J. Arid Legumes. 6(2): Rao, M.S.;.K.D. Reddy, T.V.K. Singh and G.S. Reddy. 2003: Effect of duration of pigeonpea cultivate and intercropping on pod borers. Annual Plant Prot. Sci. 11(2): Raut, S.B.; R.N. Nawale, and U.N. Mote. 1993: Field screening of pigeonpea germplasm against pod borer complex. Agricultral Science Digest (Kamal). 13(1): 7-9. vi

114 Reddy, C.N. and Yeshbir Singh. 2001: Influence of abiotic factors on major insect pests of pigeonpea. Indian J. Ento. 63(3): Reed, W., S.S. Lateef, S, Sithanathan and C.S. Pawar. 1989: Pigeopea and chickpea insect identification. Handbook of Information Bulletin No. 26, ICRISAT, A.P.. Sachan, J.N. 1990: In Summary Proc. First Consultative Group Meeting on the Host Selection Behaviour of Helicoverpa armigera. March ICRISAT, Patenchera. Pp Sahoo, B.K. and B. Senapati. 2001: Extent of damage by different pod borer spp. In pigeonpea in Coastal Orissa. J. Applied Zoological Res. 12(12): Sahoo, B.K. and N.G. Patnaik. 1993: Susceptibility of pigeonpea cultivars to pod borer in Orissa. Interl Pigeonpea Newsletter. 18(1): Saxena, K.B.; M.V. Reddy, V.R. Bhagwat and Sharma. 1996: Preliminary in Cajanus platycarpus germplasm at ICRISAT Asia centre. Interl. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 3: Sekhar, J.C.; K.M. Singh, R.N. Singh and Y. Singh. 1991: Succession of insect on pigeonpea cultivars of different maturity. Indian J Ento. 53(2): Sharma, H.C. 2003: Host plant resistance to pod borer, H. armigera in chickpea, pages In: Chickpea Res. For the Millenium: Proceedings of the Intematinal Chickpea Conference, January 2003, Raipur, Chattisgarh, India: Indira Gandhi Agril. University. vll

115 Sharma, U.K. and S.N. Pandey. 1993: Estimation of avoidable losses due to pod borer complex in early, medium and late maturing cultivars of pigeonpea. Indian J Ento. 55(2): Sharma, UX.; S.N. Pandey and R. Singh Avoidable losses in pigeonpea variety UPAS-120 due to insect pests. Indian J. Ento. 53(3): Sidde Gowda, D.X; Suhas Yelshetty, Y.K. Kotikal, B.V. Patil and V.I. Benagi. 2002: Validation of integrated pest management of pigeonpea pod borer H. armigera Hub. Interl Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 9: Sinam Subharani and TX. Singh. 2004: Insect pest complex of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in agrosystem of Manipur. Indian J. Ento. 66(3): Singh, HX. and H.N. Singh. 1991: Some major pest incidence on certain late maturing cultivars of pigeonpea during half pod formation stage. Indian J. Ento. 33(2): Singh, R.N. and KM. Singh. 1978: Succession of insect pests in early varieties of red gram (Cajanus cajan). Indian J. Ento. 40(1): 1-6. Srivastava, C.P. and R.P. Srivastava. 1989: Screening for resistance to the gram pod borer H. armigera in chickpea genotypes and obviation on its mechanisms of resistance in India. Insect Science and its Application. 10: Srivastava, C.P. and S.D. Mohapatra. 2002: Field screening of pigeonpea genotypes for resistance to major pest. J.. Applied Zoological Res. 13(2,3): viii

116 Srivastava, N.; S.C. Odak, S.B. Das and H. Goswami. 1993: Studies on susceptibility of pigeonpea cultivar to some pod infesting insects. J.N.K. V. V. Res. J. 27(1): Srivastava, R. and V.K. Sehgal 2005: Susceptibility of pigeonpea cultivar to major insect pests. Annual Plant Prot. Sci. 13(1): Sunil kumar; B. Singh and Neeraj Kumar. 2003: Assessment of pod damage caused by pod borer complex in pre-rabi pigeonpea. Indian J. Pulses Res. 16(2): Surana, D.P.; H.K. Chandrakar and S.K. Srivastava. 2002: Reaction of some genotypes of pigeonpea to pod damaging insect in Raipur. Environment and Ecology. 20(3); Talekar, N.S. 1988: A note on occurrence of M. obtusa. Interl. Pigeonpea Newsletter. 7: 34. Thakur, R.C.; K.K. Nema and O.A. Singh. 1989: Losses caused by pod fly and pod borer to pigeonpea in M.P. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 4(2): Vanam Sunitha; K. Vijaya Lakshmi and G.V. Ranga Rao. 2008: Screening of pigeonpea genotypes against Maruca vitrata (Geyer). J. Food Legumes. 21(3): Veda, O.P.; MX. Purohit and N.K. Sood. 1975: Varietal susceptibility of arhar, Cajanus cajan to M. obtusa, E. atomosa and H. armigera, JJ.K.V.V. Res. J. 9(1,2): 7-9. Yadav, L.S. and Chaudhary, J.P. 1993: Estimation of losses due to pod borers in pigeonpea. Indian J. Ento. 55(4): * Original Not Seen. ix

117 Appendix

118 ANNEXURE-J METEOROLOGICAL DATA Weekly weather data during experimental period ( ) MW Period Rainfall MM R.D. Temperature C Humidity {%) Max. Min. AM PM EVP BSS (Hr«.) w.v. (Kmph) June July July July July July Aug Aug Aug Aug Sept Sep Sep ' Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov , Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan , Jan Feb Feb Feb Mean I